Oral Answers to Questions

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Post-Primary Education

David Anderson: If he will make a statement on the review of post-primary education in Northern Ireland.

Peter Hain: The Government believe that significant reforms are needed to ensure that every young person is equipped with the knowledge and skills needed to make a positive contribution to society and the economy in the 21st century. The vital changes required are included in the draft Education (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, which will be debated in Committee later today.

David Anderson: What impact will the full reinstatement of the Northern Ireland Assembly, or not as the case may be, have on the review and its subsequent implementation?

Peter Hain: As my hon. Friend knows, the order will put an end to the transfer test—the 11-plus—and introduce new admission arrangements that will preserve academic excellence, but also give an opportunity that is currently denied to others to raise their skills and improve their opportunities. The article on academic selection in the order will come into effect after midnight on 24 November if restoration of the Assembly and devolved Government has not occurred. If it has occurred, it will be for the Assembly to decide what policy will follow the end of the transfer test that the order will otherwise bring into effect.

Sammy Wilson: I note that the Minister says that the changes that will be debated today are significant. They will change forever the face of education in Northern Ireland, and for the worse. They are opposed by the majority of people in Northern Ireland, they have been voted against in this House by the whole Northern Ireland Office ministerial team, and they are now being used as a crude form of political blackmail. Does not he feel in any way embarrassed about that inconsistency, and the crude way in which these provisions are being used to try to blackmail people politically into entering into government with Sinn Fein? Will he—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Secretary of State knows that the hon. Gentleman is displeased about this matter.

Peter Hain: You are absolutely correct, Mr. Speaker; the hon. Gentleman has often expressed his vehement displeasure to me, as have his colleagues. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman, who has properly taken a close and expert interest in education policy, that this reform comes after a long period of consultation, after independent advice, and after huge support within the education profession and among many communities right across Northern Ireland. Let me also remind him of a survey in the  Belfast Telegraph this morning, which shows that many grammar schools in Northern Ireland
	"have accepted pupils with C2 and D grades"
	for the next academic year. It says that the statistics
	"raise serious questions about the need for a long-running campaign to preserve academic selection in Northern Ireland."
	The hon. Gentleman himself is quoted as saying:
	"The grammar school lobby needs to sort this out if we want to have a strong case for keeping academic selection."
	In other words, falling school rolls are forcing this change anyway. We want to ensure that everybody gets new skills.
	On the hon. Gentleman's point about blackmail, he asked me to put this decision into the Assembly, and that is precisely what I have done. If he wants to restore devolved self-government by 24 November, he and his colleagues can help to shape the new admissions policy.

Eddie McGrady: The Secretary of State will be aware that under the education order to be debated today, academic ability and aptitude testing must not be taken into account for admission to secondary provision. Is he aware of the fear in the rural community that lack of proximity to secondary provision will create a postcode selection process, to the detriment of our excellent rural schools—leading to their decline, and that of the rural community? What action does he intend to take to ensure that that is not a primary criterion for admission to secondary provision, and to safeguard the rural schools and community in that respect?

Peter Hain: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the overall policy. He makes an important point about rural schools and the argument that there might be a postcode lottery. That is why consultation is now under way. If restoration occurs, it will be for the Assembly and the devolved Executive to carry out the admissions arrangements and the pupil profile configuration after abolition of the 11-plus. That will give schools the protection that he desires. However, I tell him, as I told the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), that falling rolls, with 50,000 empty desks in schools, rising to 80,000, mean that there must be radical reform in education and school provision right across Northern Ireland; otherwise, standards will not be where they should be, and will fall.

David Lidington: The Secretary of State is intent on ramming through the House a policy of prohibiting by law academic selection in Northern Ireland, although just over a month ago, he personally went into the Lobby here to defeat a measure that would have had a comparable effect in terms of selection in England. How can the right hon. Gentleman possibly justify a Government policy that rests on such flagrant double standards?

Peter Hain: Because, quite simply, it does not. On double standards, I shall quote what the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), told sixth-formers in Basildon on 9 January 2006:
	"I want to say absolutely clearly, the Conservative party that I am leading does not want to go back to the 11-plus, does not want to go back to the grammar school system."
	If the hon. Gentleman is consistent with his leader's policies, and if those policies are being developed and spread consistently across the UK, he should support the order. By the way, grammar school excellence will be preserved under the new policy; grammar schools are becoming increasingly more open in their selection, for the reasons described by the  Belfast Telegraph this morning.

David Lidington: I am happy to stand by my leader's and my party's policy of defending our grammar schools where they have public support, whether that is in Northern Ireland or in my constituency in Buckinghamshire. The Secretary of State is committed to a Government policy that, in respect of England, gives parents in a particular area the power to determine whether academic selection continues. If the Secretary of State has confidence that his policy is in the interests of children in Northern Ireland, why does he not have the confidence to rely on the judgment and votes of parents, as he does in England?

Peter Hain: I have made it clear to the hon. Gentleman, and I repeat, that if the Assembly is restored by 24 November, locally elected politicians can take the decision. I would have thought that he welcomed that. As he knows, and as the  Belfast Telegraph survey confirms this morning, the truth is that grammar schools will be retained, along with the excellence for which they are known. The real problem that the hon. Gentleman fails to address is that Northern Ireland's education system has been failing those of average and below-average achievement. We need to address that; this policy will do so.

Illegal Arms

Gregory Campbell: What recent discussions he has had with the Department of Foreign Affairs in Dublin on the whereabouts of illegal arms belonging to the Provisional IRA in the Republic.

Paul Goggins: Decommissioning is a matter for the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, which was established by the British and Irish Governments to provide independent oversight.

Gregory Campbell: Is the Minister aware that a few weeks ago, 10,000 rounds of ammunition were discovered in the Irish Republic? That is despite General de Chastelain telling us last September that the totality of the IRA's arsenal had been decommissioned, and the Prime Minister himself saying that there had been final and complete decommissioning. Will the Minister join the rest of us in keeping the pressure on Sinn Fein and the IRA to get rid of all the guns and weapons so that we can have a democratic Executive in Northern Ireland?

Paul Goggins: I agree that we need to get rid of all the guns and all the weapons. I am aware of the find on 1 June in County Sligo, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The Irish Government have indicated to us that their initial assessment is that those munitions have been there for many years. However, the munitions have been sent for forensic examination and there will be a report in due course. I should add that the IICD has made it clear that it could not guarantee that a small number of weapons might not have gone astray or been lost over the years, but that that should not detract from the significant commitment to peace that the Provisional IRA has made.

Ian Paisley: Does the Minister recall discussions on the recent report by the commission, in which we heard that the southern authorities had said that they knew nothing about any arms in the south, and that the arms were all taken away at the time of so-called decommissioning? That has been proved to be totally and absolutely false: whether they are old guns or new guns does not come in to it; they are guns. We heard that those had all been done away with. Until the IRA does away with its guns, there can be no real democracy in Northern Ireland.

Paul Goggins: I simply say again to the right hon. Gentleman that initial indications from the Irish Government show that those materials may have been there for many years, but quite correctly, they will make a forensic examination to establish whether that is the case. I say again that the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning reiterates what it has plainly stated—that a find of that kind, which may occur from time to time, should not detract from the commitment that the Provisional IRA has made.

Security Situation

Henry Bellingham: If he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Peter Hain: The latest report of the Independent Monitoring Commission confirmed that the security situation in Northern Ireland has been steadily improving since the Belfast agreement, with the Provisional IRA delivering on its promise to end not only its paramilitary activities but criminality as well. Regrettably, though, this is not yet the case for dissident IRA groups or for loyalists.

Henry Bellingham: Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the personnel from MI5, the French intelligence service and the Garda Siochana on their successful operation that foiled the smuggling of a large arms cache to Northern Ireland? Does he share my dismay that many of the weapons involved were lethal systems, such as surface-to-air missiles and rocket-propelled grenades—exactly the sort of weaponry and armoury being used day-in, day-out to kill and maim our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Should we not be very careful before further lowering our guard in Northern Ireland?

Peter Hain: I agree with the hon. Gentleman in respect of dissident IRA groups. The activity that he mentioned was a major achievement by the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the security services, co-operating, as he said, with the Irish authorities. It probably involved Real IRA dissident members. It was a major threat, involving a serious quantity of weapons. That is why we will continue to bear down on and attack the root of the organisation of the Real IRA, the Continuity IRA and any other paramilitary groups.

Patrick Cormack: Does the Secretary of State accept that this is not just a case of dissident republican groups and so-called loyalist groups, both of which we would condemn? The Independent Monitoring Commission has also made it plain that elements from the IRA are still involved in criminality and that Sinn Fein is still a long way from signing up to the Policing Board. Until there is an absolute denunciation of criminality and a signing up to the Policing Board, we will not have the true security that the Secretary of State and I both wish for. Does he agree?

Peter Hain: I agree that it is important for Sinn Fein to co-operate in policing, and to do so soon. I think that it will join the Policing Board in due course. It is also important to acknowledge, as the hon. Gentleman has, that there has been a sea change since the IRA made its statement last July to end paramilitary activity and any criminality. The leadership has taken repeated steps to drive out criminality, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are still some localised examples, which must end. None the less, I am satisfied—as are the security services and the Police Service of Northern Ireland—that the leadership of both Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA are trying to root out and stop criminality.

Lady Hermon: Given the present security situation in Northern Ireland, will the Secretary of State kindly agree to meet Mr. Raymond McCord, whose son was brutally murdered by the Ulster Volunteer Force eight years ago and who is still awaiting truth, justice and closure in respect of his son's murder? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to meet him?

Peter Hain: If the hon. Lady arranges a meeting through my diary secretary, I will of course be pleased to meet him.

Lembit �pik: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Northern Ireland parties are now faced with a choice? Is the security situation so bad that they hold out against restarting the Assembly, or is it sufficiently good to justify their participation in a functioning Assembly on a cross-party basis? Does he accept that the difficult but necessary choice is whether to hold out on principle against restarting the Assembly, thereby losing out on everything from the changes in education policy that we have just debated right through to the redrawing of local government boundaries and billing for utilities? Does he further accept that that choice is entirely in the hands of Northern Ireland politicians?

Peter Hain: I could not have said it better myself. In my view, the conditions are clear. There is no reason for the parties collectively not to negotiate on the restoration of devolved Government and to achieve it before the deadline of 24 November, which is set in concrete and in statute. If that is not achieved, the salaries and allowances will end, as well as the financial assistance to political parties, which totals some 600,000. I do not want to do that. I want self-government to be restored in Northern Ireland, with elected local politicians making decisions, as the hon. Gentleman said.

David Simpson: Following the 2003 security breach at the Northern Ireland Police Fund, charges against Mr. Thomas Hale were later dropped. The reason given was that a member of staff had withdrawn a statement. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the member of staff did not withdraw the statement, and will he call immediately for a public inquiry?

Peter Hain: I certainly will not. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I will provide for inquiries to be made and those responsible for the matter will doubtless report to me. If I have anything to report to him, I shall happily do that.

Alasdair McDonnell: Does the Secretary of State agree that in the light of the improved security situation in Northern Ireland, the vast sums of money spent on close protection units for individuals should perhaps be reconsidered and reviewed for scaling back?

Peter Hain: I do agree. That is precisely why we are considering the close protection scheme, which is expensive but necessary for many individuals who may be vulnerable. We are examining whether, in the changed security climate, it is necessary to pursue it to the same extent as it operates now.

Laurence Robertson: The Secretary of State will recall that, at previous Northern Ireland questions, I condemned from the Dispatch Box loyalist paramilitaries for retaining weapons and for their activity. We are now hearing reports about dissident IRA members. In  The Sunday Times, Liam Clarke wrote:
	The armoury demonstrates an apparent intention by the dissidents to begin a widespread campaign on the scale of that carried out by the Provisional IRA.
	Given that, and the fact that Sinn Fein-IRA have not signed up to policing in any way, shape or formthe last time I was in south Armagh, the police told me that the Member of Parliament for that area will not even talk to themis it not time to put pressure on those people rather than on constitutional politicians to get the Assembly up and running?

Peter Hain: We are indeed putting pressure on Sinn Fein to co-operate with policing, locally and in every other respect. Once the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which deals with the devolution of policing and justice, is given Royal Assent at the end of next monthas I hope it will beit will be incumbent on Sinn Fein to deliver progress on policing, to which they have committed themselves. The hon. Gentleman is right: dissident IRA groups still pose a threat. A 250 lb bomb in Lurgan was stopped from being exploded by expert intelligence activity. We must keep at it and bear down on dissident activity, but the dissidents are operating on nothing like the scale that the IRA did. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) will support the Government's policy on devolved Government, as we supported the efforts of John Major and Margaret Thatcher to get the peace process on the road.

Sesame Street Ltd

Graham Allen: What discussions he has had with Sesame Street Ltd on programmes to improve understanding between young people of different traditions in Northern Ireland.

David Cairns: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met representatives of Sesame Street Ltd to hear of their plans to develop a series of programmes in Northern Ireland to challenge sectarianism and racism, and he will shortly be raising the issue with the director-general of the BBC.

Graham Allen: Does the Under-Secretary appreciate the work of the international parts of the charity Sesame Street with youngsters in Israel and Palestine? It has got youngsters from both sides of a strong religious divide to work together and understand each other. Will my hon. Friend continue his efforts to ensure that people from both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland get together? The strongest weapon of those who promote religious bigotry is ignorance. If we can get more knowledge and understanding between the communities through using the charity, it will reduce violence across the community divide.

David Cairns: My hon. Friend is right. Sesame Street is a highly respected international broadcaster with a global brand and a global outreach. It has done tremendously good work in the middle east, South Africa and elsewhere, and everyone would welcome its engagement in Northern Ireland as part of building the shared future that we all want.

Iris Robinson: I welcome the fact that Sesame Street Ltd will operate in Northern Ireland, but will the Minister also address the issue of other scourges of our young people apart from sectarianism, such as drug and alcohol abuse, diet and sexually transmitted illnesses?

David Cairns: I very much agree with everything the hon. Lady has saidand that is very much part of what Sesame Street has done. Another issue that could be added to the list is the upsurge in hate crime and racist violence in Northern Ireland recently. I know that she shares with me an absolute abhorrence of such crimes, and if Sesame Street can play a part in tackling any resurgence of racism and hate crime, it will also be welcome.

Ministerial Office

Peter Bone: If he will make it a requirement of holding ministerial office in the Northern Ireland Executive that a person must take an oath to uphold the rule of law.

Nicholas Winterton: What his policy is on the appointment to ministerial office of people who do not support the police.

Peter Hain: All the parties should support the rule of law and policing arrangements in Northern Ireland, especially those holding ministerial office in a restored Northern Ireland Executive, who should also abide by the terms of the pledge of office, which commits them to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means.

Peter Bone: Many people believe that former terrorists should not be Ministers. However, if they are to serve in the Northern Ireland Executive, the very least they could do is to take an oath to uphold the rule of law so that their despicable pasts can be just thattheir past. Would the Secretary of State agree?

Peter Hain: I agree absolutely, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the pledge of office, which commits all serving members to commit themselves to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means, is effectively a commitment to the rule of law. It was agreed by all the parties and is in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 as a result of the Good Friday agreement. I am at one with him in insisting that all elected politicians, especially Ministers, comply with the rule of law and support the police.

Nicholas Winterton: Could we have an unequivocal answer from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? Does he believe that all people who hold public appointments in Northern Ireland not only should support the policing arrangements but must support them, because the police uphold the rule of law? Will he say that they must support policing arrangements, and go rather further than he has to date?

Peter Hain: Of course I think that the police must be, and should be, supported by all holding ministerial office. I want to be clear, however, that there has been a sea change on the part of republicans, Sinn Fein and the IRA in the past year or so, as a result of all the painstaking work done by our Governments and our predecessor Governments, and we should welcome that. I do not want to see another obstacle erected late in the day to stop the restoration of devolved government. If we disagree about that, that will have to be that.

Mark Durkan: The Secretary of State is correct to warn us of the dangers of turning objectives, no matter how good, into preconditions, but does he recognise that we are caught in a vicious circle of vetoes on policing? Sinn Fein says that it will not sign on for policing until the Democratic Unionist party agrees a date for the devolution of justice and policing, and the DUP says that it will not agree a date until Sinn Fein commits to supporting policing. Does the Secretary of State share my suspicion that those two parties are trading vetoes so that they can blame each other for failure?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point in his own way. It is essential that all the parties, including the two that he mentioned, work together to get the restoration of devolved government and to make progress on policing. Both of those objectives are crucial to the future stability and success of Northern Ireland.

Peter Robinson: Will the Secretary of State try to understand the concern of my right hon. and hon. Friends that the message coming from the Northern Ireland Office is that [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Please allow the hon. Gentleman to speak.

Peter Robinson: The message is that Sinn Fein is already a partner fit for Government, but there are still issues outstanding in terms of criminality and the acceptance of the rule of law. Instead of sending out his officials to leak to the BBC about the finances and position of DUP Members should the Assembly close, will he go out and tell Sinn Fein that there is work for it to do? May I also assure him that whatever issues my party considers in the run-up to 24 November, party finances will not be one of them?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman will know that I have made what I expect to happen clear to Sinn Fein. He and his party have been considerably responsible for putting pressure on Sinn Fein and the IRA to make sure that they continue to change in the way that they have done in the past year. He and the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) deserve credit for that.
	On the question of finance, we have made it clear that party funding for Assembly groups will have to stop if politicians do not do their jobs in the Assembly. Moreover, advice centres will have to close down and salaries will stop being paid. That is what the people of Northern Ireland have demanded, and that is what will happen at midnight on 24 November if there is no agreement.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

Lembit �pik: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 28 June.

Tony Blair: Before I list my engagements, I know that the whole House will join me in sending our condolences and sympathy to the families of the two British soldiers killed in Afghanistan yesterday. They were fighting the Taliban, and they were brave and committed soldiers. This country can be very proud of the work that they were doing.
	This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Lembit �pik: I am sure that the whole House will associate itself with those sentiments.
	I thank the Prime Minister for endorsing efforts to find a cure for motor neurone disease, which kills one UK resident every eight hours. His support is welcome and hugely valued, but is he aware that, in the past five years, for every 337,000 that the Government spent in research per diagnosed case of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, they invested a mere 108 in research per diagnosed case of MND? Will he therefore ask Health Ministers to meet the Motor Neurone Disease Association and give equal priority to curing that disease? Will he also back our efforts to raise 15 million for a research fund to rid the world of this terrible disease?

Tony Blair: First, I pay tribute to the work that the hon. Gentleman has done on behalf of the MNDA, and I thank him for arranging my recent meeting with him and the association. We fully support the efforts to raise the money required, and I shall pass his remarks on to the relevant Ministers. Much of the funding comes through the Medical Research Council, but he is right that there is a clear gap between the amount of money spent on research into CJD and what is spent on MND. We shall therefore look to see what more we can do.

Janet Anderson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, 30 years on from the introduction of the Equal Pay Act by a Labour Government, the winner of the Wimbledon women's singles competition will receive 30,000 less in prize money than the winner of the men's singles? Wimbledon is the only grand slam competition in which that happens. Will he support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in her efforts to persuade the Lawn Tennis Association to put that inequality right?

Tony Blair: I was somewhat coy about that yesterday, as I did not realise that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport had pronounced on the matter already. Therefore, I am happy to be bolder today, to welcome what she said, and to endorse it fully.

David Cameron: May I echo what the Prime Minister said about the two young soldiers who have been killed in Afghanistan? Our thoughts and prayers are with their families.
	When asked about the need to replace Britain's independent nuclear deterrent, the Prime Minister said at that Dispatch Box last week that he wanted the fullest possible debate, and that a decision would be taken later in this Parliament. That afternoon, the Chancellor of the Exchequer went around saying that he had made a decision and that it would be announced later this year. Will the Prime Minister tell us what the Chancellor was up to?

Tony Blair: It was made clear in the Labour manifesto that we are committed to maintaining the independent nuclear deterrent, and I have also said that we think that it is right to do so. A decision will be taken in this Parliament, and that will happen later this year. It is important that Britain makes sure that it can defend itself properly. I believe that an independent nuclear deterrent is an essential part of that.

David Cameron: In his speech, the Chancellor repeated what was in Labour's manifesto, but he went around briefing something completely different. The BBC's political editor said that he wished the Chancellor
	would use code and spin less and speak in plain English a little more. Then we could focus on the real debate.
	One of the things that the Chancellor said was that there should be a vote. So will the Prime Minister tell us, in plain English, will the House of Commons have a vote on whether Trident is replaced?

Tony Blair: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House dealt with that during business questions last week. He said, rightly, that we will of course consult the House fully. The method of doing so will be announced at the time when we publish the White Paper. I can assure the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) that there will of course be the fullest possible debate, as there would have to be.
	I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to debate today the policy he announced yesterday on the Bill of Rights. Since we are having a debate, at long last, on policy, I thought he might want to debate one of his.

David Cameron: It is a simple enough question: the Chancellor wants a vote and the Education Secretary has said there ought to be vote; can we have a vote in the House?

Tony Blair: I have already explained that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made the position clear last Thursday. That is the position, and we will announce the means of consultation when we publish the White Paper. Of course, we believe it is extremely important to have the fullest possible debate on the subject.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister is saying one thing and the Chancellor briefing another. Is not this part of a wider problem? Is not there a danger that the Prime Minister is becoming the David Brent of Downing streetutterly redundant, he is just hanging round the office?

Tony Blair: What we are doing is setting out policies for the long-term future of the country, on, for example, a stable economy, on the new deal to help cut unemployment further, on child care and on pensions. The energy review will be published shortly, and there is the NHS reform programme. All those are substantial policies for the future of the country.
	What happens to the right hon. Gentleman when he makes a policy decision? He has one on foreign policyto withdraw from the European People's party. He finally announced a domestic policyhis own Bill of Rightswhich was denounced by the chairman of his own democracy commission as xenophobic legal nonsense. I am surprised, when he has just announced a major change to the British constitution, that he does not want to get up and debate it. Come on.
	Direction is about policy.  [Interruption.] I am happy to debate our policies, I am happy to debate the right hon. Gentleman's policies, and I am happy to have a policy debate. He has two questions left; let us debate policy.

Hon. Members: More!

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Gwyn Prosser: Everyone accepts the need to deal with surplus school places in a rational manner. What has the Prime Minister to say, however, about Conservative-controlled Kent county council and its crude action to close or merge nine schools in Dover, nearly a quarter of the primary schools in my constituency? Does he think that represents lack of planning, lack of imagination or just lack of care?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that it does not involve lack of money, because we have put vast sums into education in Kent and elsewhere in the country, all of which, of course, the Conservative party voted against. He is also absolutely right to say that primary schools have made enormous progress in the past few years, and I should deeply regret anything that put that at risk.

Menzies Campbell: I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the expressions of condolence and sympathy that we have just heard from the Prime Minister.
	Given the urgency of the hostage crisis and the significance of the role of the United States in the middle east, has the Prime Minister discussed the present situation with the President of the United States?

Tony Blair: We discuss issues to do with the middle east, Israel and Palestine every time I speak to the President. I have not spoken to him in the past 24 hours or so, but those things are a major part of any conversation we have. We both believe it extremely important to make sure that we restart a peace process that is the only way to stop events such as the terrible events of the past 24 hours. In the end, what is necessary, obviously, will be to make sure that peace and calm are restored so that there is some possibility of getting negotiation going.

Menzies Campbell: I think the Prime Minister will agree that this is a particularly crucial moment, so what joint actions will he and the President take to capitalise on the apparent willingness of Hamas to accept a negotiated settlement and a two-state solution? It would be a tragedy if that possibility of progress were derailed by the hostage crisis.

Tony Blair: I think I understand what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying. If Hamas is prepared to commit itself to a two-state solution and to negotiate a settlement, that necessarily must mean that it is committed to the existence of Israel, to the renunciation of violence, and to negotiation as a way of achieving that settlement. If Hamas were clear on those issues and if it was prepared to return to the road map, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends used to ask me to endorse and carry forwardas I still want to doI can assure him, not just on my own behalf but on behalf of the President as well, that Americathe Quartetwould be willing to take the process forward as swiftly as possible. But if we are negotiating a two-state solution, we need to know that both sides to the negotiation are committed to the existence of the other state.

Ann Keen: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the decision of the Conservative councillors in Hounslow to share power with a group led by Phil Andrews, a former parliamentary candidate for the National Front? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that decision is not consistent with statements from leaders of all parties condemning all racist organisations?

Tony Blair: I am sure that all party leaders most sincerely condemn racism of any sort. I do not know about the situation in my hon. Friend's constituency, but it would of course be deeply regrettable if anyone was in alliance with people who do not conform to the principles to which I hope we all conform.

Annette Brooke: In light of the Prime Minister's avowed priority for victims of crime, will he ensure that therapeutic services are available for all children who experience sexual abuse and indeed for children who exhibit sexually harmful behaviour who may have been abused themselves? That would be in line with the recommendations of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children on the issue.

Tony Blair: I would like an update, to send to the hon. Lady, about exactly what we are doing in the area of therapeutic treatment for the victims of sexual abuse. I can tell her that we have significantly increased funding for Victim Support and for the whole range of NHS therapeutic services, but I would like to acquaint myself with the actual details of what we are doing in that area and send them to her.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am sure that the Prime Minister would accept that the 1970 nuclear non-proliferation treaty commits this country and all other declared nuclear powers to long-term disarmament. In light of that, will he explain why the Government are even considering an extension to, or a replacement for, Trident? Should not we seize this historic opportunity to start a process of nuclear disarmament around the world?

Tony Blair: We do an immense amount in that area, and there is nothing inconsistent in renewing our independent nuclear deterrent and in being in favour of non-proliferation. My hon. Friend's remarks are an indication that the debate will be lively.

David Cameron: Ministers are meeting tomorrow in Geneva to try to resolve the vital world trade talks. When I last asked the Prime Minister about the talks, he said that failure in the Doha development round would be a disaster, and I agree. Given that Oxfam says that there are still 760 areas of disagreement, how confident is the Prime Minister that we will make progress this weekend?

Tony Blair: It is obviously immensely difficult. However, we are working very closely, in particular with the German Government of Chancellor Merkel and with the Brazilians, to try to find a way forward. In addition, I spoke recently to Pascal Lamy, the head of the World Trade Organisation, and we talked through the various outstanding issues, but, yes, a lot of movement will be needed from all areasfrom Europe on agriculture, from America on subsidies, from Brazil and the G20 countries on non-agricultural market accessand we will do everything we can to make sure that progress is maintained.

David Cameron: Clearly, a reduction in agricultural protection is absolutely key to those talks. Although our headline offer appears to be a 39 per cent. cut in tariffs, there are concerns that when it is applied in practice it will mean a lot less; in fact, one estimate, based on figures from economists at the World Bank, is that it would, in effect, mean an average cut of only 1 per cent. Does the Prime Minister agree that that would be completely inadequate?

Tony Blair: Yes, I do, which is why I think that it is important that we all go further. But I should say to the right hon. Gentleman that exactly the same calculations could be made in relation to some of the other offers that are made by the G20 on non-agricultural market access and in relation to the American offer in terms of agricultural subsidy. I am afraid that, in every single part of this, there are still outstanding issues that have to be resolved. That is whycertainly prior to the G8 and possibly at the G8I will be arguing very strongly that the leaders need to put pressure on all the different systems to go far further.
	In my view, it would be a disaster not just for world trade and for the development package that we want to see, but for the whole multilateral system, if the WTO went down. That is precisely why, as I say, that has been a constant part of my dialogue not just with America, but most particularly with the German Government, who share our view that failure in this area would be deeply regrettable for the whole of the international system.

Adrian Bailey: What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the impact on community relations of the alliance between the former British National party organiser Steve Edwards and the Conservative candidate in Tipton in the last local elections

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not the Prime Minister's responsibility. I am sure that he is pleased to hear that.

Health Service IT

Richard Bacon: How much has been spent on the national programme for IT in the health service.

Tony Blair: The national programme for IT will help us to deliver an NHS fit for the 21st century. In 10 years, it will connect more than 30,000 GPs in England to more than 300 hospitals, giving patients access to their personal health and care information. By the end of March 2006, expenditure on the contracts let at the outset of the programme was 654 million. As the National Audit Office report said:
	The notable progress and tight control of the central aspects of the programme are to be commended.

Richard Bacon: Does the Prime Minister agree with Sir John Bourn that value for money on this programme is safeguarded because suppliers will not receive public money for IT projects and services until they are delivered and shown to be working effectively? Can he give the House his personal assurance that that has not happenedfor example in relation to iSOFT, whose directors trousered 76 million in share sales prior to their recent share crash?

Tony Blair: I do not know about the particular example that the hon. Gentleman gave, but let me explain to him why it is important that we have that information technology programme. In the end, one of the huge benefits of having a national health service is that we can have electronic patient records that are transferable right round the system. If that happens, it means not just an end to vast amounts of paperwork in the NHS, but that things such as patient choice, for example, can become a reality. Contrary to the pre-reports of the National Audit Office report, on the whole the NAO was complimentary about the IT programme. It is a huge programme, but it will deliver real benefits. Of course, we have to make sure that people offer value for money, but by and large the NAO said that we did.

Repatriation

Julian Lewis: What his policy is on returning terrorist sympathisers to their countries of origin.

Tony Blair: Foreign nationals living in the UK who pose a threat to this country should indeed be removed.

Julian Lewis: I entirely agree with the Prime Minister, but does he accept that no society can be safe if its laws fail to recognise that people forfeit some of their own rights when they pose a threat to, or infringe, the rights of others? Is not that failure precisely why he had to abandon the pledge that he gave the House on 3 May that foreign prisonerscriminalswould be deported automatically on release, and is it not why he is helpless to deport foreign terrorist sympathisers?

Tony Blair: No, although there is a particular problem, which I will come to in a moment. We have many peopleI think almost 40who are foreign nationals who are accused of terrorist offences or of plotting or inciting terrorism and their cases are going through the court. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that we have got to make sure that those court cases are successful. But under the Human Rights Act 1998, we have the power expressly to override legislation if we wish to do so. What I said last year, and repeat now, is that we are prepared to do so if necessary.
	If I may say so, our view is somewhat better than the one expressed by the Leader of the Opposition. He said that we should replace the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights. He also went on to say that that should not be subject to the Parliament Act, and therefore would be entrenched, which, in fact, would make it even harder to do what the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) wants. The Leader of the Opposition also said that the reason why we needed that was something called the Singh case. I can point out that the case was decided in August 2000. The right hon. Gentleman said that it had been decided under the guidance of the Human Rights Act, but that Act came into force in October 2000. So we have

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Prime Minister has made the point.

Engagements

Joan Humble: Is the Prime Minister aware that domestic burglary has gone down by 21 per cent. in my constituency? Car theft had gone down by 23 per cent. between 2003 and 2004-05. However, in spite of extra police officers in Lancashire, extra police support staff, the new police community support officers, community wardens and special constables, many people still think that crime is going up. Will the Prime Minister reassure my constituents that they are less likely to be a victim of crime now than they would have been at any time in the past 25 years?

Tony Blair: What my hon. Friend says is absolutely true. Incidentally, I would like to pay tribute to the Lancashire police force, which is a groundbreaking force that does a superb job. She is absolutely right that there have been big falls in both car crime and burglary, and the antisocial behaviour legislation is also of enormous help here. I know that she will realise that we need to do more, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is examining various issues to do with the Home Office. The Violent Crime Reduction Bill will play a part in this as well. My hon. Friend is right that we need to keep on ensuring not only that the laws are fit for what we need, but that we get the community policing out on the street that her constituents and others want.

John Hayes: In 1997, when the Prime Minister was still the future, he pledged to cut early-years class sizes to below 30. In the same year, and in every year since, he has promised to tackle school truancy. However, parliamentary answers that I have received show that those early-years class sizes have doubled since 2002 and that truancy has risen by 200,000 over the same period. Has the Prime Minister changed his mind about those priorities, or just broken his promises?

Tony Blair: As far as I am aware, the infant class pledge has been met. If the hon. Gentleman goes into virtually any primary school in the country, he will see the effect not merely of the investment in bricks and mortar, but of something like 80,000 extra classroom assistants. In so far as we have been able to cut infant class sizes, we have done so, of course, because of the extra investment in our public services that he voted against in the past.

Lynne Jones: Since my right hon. Friend became Prime Minister, hospital waiting lists and waiting times have dropped dramatically. Unfortunately, the reverse is the case for housing waiting lists. Before my right hon. Friend leaves office, will he ensure that the necessary investment is committed so that his legacy will also be one of falling housing waiting lists?

Tony Blair: I thank my hon. Friend very much indeed for the first part of her question, which I regard as progress of a sort. However, she is absolutely right that we need to do more on housing, particularly social housing. That is why we are investing literally hundreds of millions of pounds over the coming years to ensure that we have better social housing and to increase the provision of houses as well

Ken Purchase: Not social housing: council housing.

Tony Blair: Whether it is provided by councils or others, it is important that we get the maximum investment in housing. Of course we only manage to achieve investment when we have a strong economy with the money therefore to invest.

Alex Salmond: Will the Prime Minister set out a clear timetable for the removal from the statute book of the Act of Settlement, which introduces clear discrimination against millions of our fellow citizens? Would a Government set on a course of repeal not be demonstrating leadership, authority and direction?

Tony Blair: No, I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, but as we are on the subject of legislation I can tell him what I would not agree to do, and that is to introduce the Bill that he wantsan independence Bill for Scotland. That would be an absolute and total disaster for the people of Scotland.

Margaret Moran: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of my official engagements yesterday was the opening of the 11th children's centre in my constituency, at a school, Dallow junior, which has received over 2 million of additional investment for new facilities? Will he join me in congratulating the staff involved in that achievement, and does he agree that it is another example of this Government tackling child poverty, which doubled under the Conservative party?

Tony Blair: I can assure my hon. Friend that it is our intention to keep up the investment in children's centres. Sure Start, too, is an immensely important programme that has not only allowed hundreds of thousands of people to get access to facilities that help their children, but benefited many parents enormously. In addition, we are trying to support people through the work-life balance, the children's tax credit, and increases in maternity leave and maternity pay. All that adds up to a package that results not in simply talking about helping families but in supporting them in realistic and practical ways throughout the country.

James Duddridge: What part of the question Will there be a vote on Trident? does the Prime Minister not understand?

Tony Blair: I understand it, and I refer the hon. Gentleman to what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said last Thursdaythat remains the position.

Paul Farrelly: I report with great sadness to the Prime Minister that, following the local elections and a bit of bed-hopping by the Liberal Democrats, Newcastle-under-Lyme is being temporarily led by the Conservatives. In the past 20-plus years Newcastle has been well served by Labour leadersMike Brereton, Eddie Boden and David Leechand I wonder whether, in this novel situation, the Prime Minister can help me out. By which yardsticks would he judge this new, Tory/Liberal Democrat alliance in my area, however temporary it may be?

Tony Blair: The most important thing is that the programmes of renewal and inner-city regeneration that were funded by the Government are maintained by the council, and I know that my hon. Friend will be holding it strictly to account.

Martin Horwood: I am sure that the Prime Minister will join me in congratulating Cheltenham and Tewkesbury primary care trust on never having had a financial deficit and on living within its means. Can he therefore explain to the professionals, patients and people of Cheltenham why we are being rewarded with the closure of our 10-year-old purpose-built maternity ward, the closure of our rehabilitation hospital, cuts in health promotion, cuts in community nursing, cuts in health visiting, cuts in access to acute care and the non-implementation of new NICE-prescribed drugs such as Herceptin?

Tony Blair: I do not know the particular circumstances of the hon. Gentleman's constituency and what has happened with the primary care trust there, although I am sure that if we were to go into it we would also find that waiting times and waiting lists for patients had fallen substantially and that there were additional numbers of people being treated far faster for cancer and cardiac care. I am afraid that it is a necessary part of the financial management in the health service that no matter how much money is put in, there will have to be proper accountability to make sure that that money is spent well. I am very happy to look into the points that the hon. Gentleman raises.

Mark Harper: I gave notice to the Prime Minister's office that I was going to raise the case of the late Lieutenant William Norbury MC and his widow Gillian, and the battle to win her the war disability pension to which she is entitled. Yesterday, at a veterans reception in Downing street, the Prime Minister was challenged to resolve the issue by Mrs. Norbury's splendid champion, John Nunneley. In Mr. Nunneley's own words, he appealed to the Prime Minister to act as Mrs. Norbury's court of last resort. Is the Prime Minister now able to deliver his judgment in this case?

Tony Blair: No, I am not able to do that right now. I met Mr. Nunneley yesterday and he gave me a letter explaining the situation. I thank the hon. Gentleman for notice of the question. It is a complex case because Lieutenant Norbury was a member of the King's African Rifles, which is a colonial force raised in Kenya, and responsibility for his war pension was taken over by the Kenyan Government when that country gained its independence in the early 1960s. Ministers and officials have met Mrs. Norbury's representatives on a number of occasions, and the Ministry of Defence is now examining a number of possible schemes to consider whether Mrs. Norbury will be eligible under any of them. So the MOD is looking into it, and I hope that I will be able to get back to Mr. Nunneley or Mrs. Norbury in due course.

Linda Gilroy: Will the Prime Minister congratulate Plymouth city council on returning to Labour control last Thursday after a successful by-election? Will he take an interest, too, in the challenge that we face of providing enough affordable housing to rent and buy, as we need some flexibility to play our part as one of the country's key growth areas?

Tony Blair: I certainly congratulate the council and its Labour leadership on the superb work that they are doing, not least in relation to schools, antisocial behaviour and regeneration. The by-election last week set a very good example.

Jubilee Line Case Review

Mike O'Brien: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the report by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service on the Jubilee Line case.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General made a statement in another place yesterday . [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members leave the Chamber quietly, as a statement is being made?

Mike O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General made a statement in another place yesterday. I did seek to provide opposition spokesmen with a copy of the report in good time yesterday, and to indicate that we did not intend to make an oral statement in the House, consistent with practice on some legal issues in the past. When I had an opportunity to speak to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), he said that he wanted an oral statement, and I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for agreeing to allow me to make one today.
	In retrospect, I think that hon. Gentleman was right that the Attorney-General's statement on the issue should have been repeated in this House at the same time, and I apologise to him and to the House for the fact that that was not done. In future, however legalistic they are, statements made in another place ought to be made in the House unless there is prior agreement otherwise. With minor amendments to allow for the fact that a day has elapsed, the Attorney-General's statement reads as follows:
	On 22 March 2005 the case of Regina v Rayment and Others was terminated at the Central Criminal Court after it had been running since June 2003. The prosecution announced its decision not to oppose a defence application to discharge the jury and subsequently offered no evidence. The defendants were then acquitted.
	Immediately afterwards I announced that I was referring the matter to the Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service under Section (2)(1)(b) of the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Act 2000. I asked the chief inspector: to review the circumstances surrounding the prosecution commonly known as the Jubilee Line case; to ascertain the factors leading to the decision to terminate; to consider what steps the prosecution could have taken to avoid that outcome; and to make recommendations aimed at preventing this happening again. The chief inspector's final report was published yesterday. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
	The report contains a detailed, but not comprehensive, analysis of the case. The constraints imposed by the remit of Her Majesty's Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate means the report inevitably focuses on the role of the prosecution, whilst aiming to give as balanced a view as possible of what occurred. The chief inspector also requested Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary to provide expert advice and analysis on the police work in this case, particularly the investigation. The work they did was used to inform the report which is published today.
	That would have been yesterday. The Attorney-General continued:
	Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary will also be publishing separately its own stand-alone report. The review team was also able to conduct individual interviews with 11 jurors in the case, and a group interview with eight of those jurors. They were assisted in this task by Professor Sally Lloyd-Bostock and Dr Cheryl Thomas of Birmingham University, who have conducted previous research into juries. This enabled the review team to obtain the benefit of the jurors' experience, whilst at the same time ensuring a proper distance between the jurors and the inspectorate.
	The report concludes that the collapse of the trial was the cumulative effect of mistakes and shortcomings by a number of agencies and individuals responsible for the case, which tested the adversarial system, as well as the jury system, beyond breaking point. The review also concludes that the decision to end the case was inevitable and correct in the light of legal authorities, having regard to the circumstances prevailing at the time. The report highlights three specific issues which it sees as having had a major contribution towards the termination of the proceedings: the decision to include count two, conspiracy to defraud London Underground Limited; the slow and disjointed nature of the proceedings; and the illness of one of the defendants.
	I very much welcome the valuable and detailed analysis by the chief inspector and his team. I pay tribute to the thoroughness of their work. I note the important conclusion that the decision to terminate the case was correct.
	Views may differ as to what conclusions are drawn from the analysis on, for example, whether we should always have a jury in a case of serious and complex fraud. I will return to that subject later.
	My overriding purpose in establishing the review was to ensure that we have done, and continue to do, all we can to ensure that there is no repetition of the events which led to the collapse of this case, particularly so far as the prosecuting authorities are concerned.
	Investigation and subsequent prosecution of this case was spread over a long period, from 1997 to 2005. Some key decisions made at an early stage had a significant impact on the future handling of the case and, with the benefit of hindsight, can be seen to have created difficulties. I accept that there is justified criticism of some aspects of the prosecution.
	Because, as I have said, the review report inevitably focuses on the CPS, and I am the Minister accountable for the CPS, it is right for me to draw the House's attention to the steps which have been taken to improve the handling of these cases within the CPS, as well as changes in the external environment. I accept the report's conclusion that fraud work within the CPS has not always been recognised as requiring a degree of dedicated resource and expertise. That is now being rectified, with the establishment of a separate and specialist fraud prosecution division within CPS London, a move welcomed by the report.
	A wider issue is that of the case management and review arrangements which were in place during the duration of the Jubilee Line case. When I was appointed Attorney-General, it became apparent to me that the arrangements for supervising lawyers who had day-to-day control of serious and complex cases, and of reviewing the quality of their decisions, were not adequate. In particular, the culture had evolved where it was believed that only a lawyer who had read alland I mean allthe papers could take a decision on the case. The disadvantages of this approach had already been the subject of discussion between my predecessor as Attorney-General and the then DPP, now Mr Justice Calvert-Smith. I signalled a new approach in a Written Parliamentary Answer on 27 February 2003. This enabled more senior lawyers within the CPS, including the DPP, to be involved in the decision-making process, or to take decisions on the basis of detailed briefing and consideration of the key material but without having to read all the often very voluminous papers. The effect of this change would be, as I said in the Answer, to enable greater input by senior lawyers into the most critical decisions that the service faces.
	In addition, and after discussion with me, the current DPP has established a system of greater review by senior management of prosecuting decisions. In particular, he has established a system of case management panels. These are held on a monthly basis and enable a panel of senior lawyers to act as a critical friend to the lawyers handling a case. The panels, which have been in operation since September 2005, have already proved their worth in strengthening the presentation of cases, identifying any potential weaknesses and, in some cases, shortening the predicted trial lengths. This is especially important given the report's criticism that the Jubilee Line case was allowed to run without such senior management control. The CPS is also developing a new case management and case quality assurance system, particularly for serious and complex cases.
	More widely within the criminal justice system, Ministers and the judiciary have agreed the criminal case management framework which clearly sets out the responsibilities of all those involved in trials; and the then Lord Chief Justice issued a protocol on the management of heavy and complex cases in March 2005. These developments, combined with revised disclosure protocols and my own revised guidelines to prosecutors on disclosure, combine to make a very different system from that which was in operation during the Jubilee Line trial.
	The report makes 11 recommendations. They are set out in detail in the report and I will not take time repeating them. They have been considered by Government and the agencies involved. The substance of all the recommendations are accepted, save for recommendation 10, which will require further discussions between Ministers and the senior judiciary.
	Earlier in my Statement I said that I would come back to the issue of jury trials for serious and complex fraud cases. We have had extensive debates in this House and in the other place about the Government's established policy that there should be the opportunity in some serious and complex fraud cases for those trials to be heard without a jury. The Jubilee Line report concludes that the circumstances of this case were so unusual that it cannot be relied on directly to support the case either for dispensing with, or retaining, juries. It also concludes that the case was not intrinsically of such seriousness or complexity that it would necessarily have been accepted by the Serious Fraud Office as falling within its criteria for taking on cases, nor that it would necessarily have met the conditions set out in Section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
	I should say that I take a different view. I am very clear that no blame for the termination of the case should fall on the shoulders of the individual jurors; rather, they are to be commended for their commitment and attention. Nevertheless, I believe the case illustrates a good deal about the challenges of presenting long and complex cases in front of a jury.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 27 June 2006; Vol. 683, c. 1096-99.]
	That concludes the statement.

Dominic Grieve: I thank the Solicitor-General for the statement. I fully accept his apology. He sought to keep me completely informed about the nature of the statement to be made in the other place and supplied me with a copy of the document in good time. I am glad that he acknowledges that it would have been better if statements had been made in both places simultaneously, especially as the subject matter, although it may be legalistic, touches on several contentious topics that are relevant to issues before the House at present.
	The report is to be commended. I am sure that the House would wish to thank Mr. Stephen Wooler and his team. Although its remit is restricted to the Crown Prosecution Service, with an added angle of the police role, it is detailed, illuminating and helpful. The fact that no verdict was returned in the case enabled Mr. Wooler's team, most unusually, to be able to interview jurors about their views in relation to the process, which he described as a hugely valuable insight into the case.
	The collapse of this case was at huge public expensesome 25 million, with no verdict returned. It has been used extensively by those who have supported the argument that juries should be got rid of in long and complex fraud cases. Does not a detailed reading of this report show that that assertion is entirely unjustified? Is not one of the most interesting conclusions of Mr. Wooler's report that his analysis does not support that at all, and that the argument is wholly erroneous? At paragraph 9 of the executive summary, Mr. Wooler said that
	although the collapse of the Jubilee Line case was regarded in many quarters as relevant to the debate about the suitability of juries to try charges of fraud, and in particular the proposal to implement Section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
	which has been a highly contentious issue before this House
	its circumstances were in reality so unusual that it cannot be relied on to support either position in that debate.
	Will the Solicitor-General please confirm that that is the position of the Law Officers, because I noted both yesterday and in the Solicitor-General's remarks, but especially in remarks made by the Attorney-General on a news programme yesterday evening, that he appears to disagree with his own inspector's report in respect of that matter?
	Furthermore, the main body of the report contains ample evidence that goes further in supporting the role of juries in trials of this kind. At paragraph 1.40, in relation to the jury, Mr. Wooler says:
	No responsibility for the inconclusive outcome of the case can properly be attributed to the capabilities or conduct of the jury. Overall, they discharged their duties in a thorough and conscientious manner. Collectively, they appeared even at the time of our interview with them to have a good grip of the evidence and the issues, particularly allowing for the fact that many months had passed since they had last heard any evidence.
	What is perhaps most tellingI should be grateful for the Solicitor-General's comments on thisis that the inquiry had before it a letter from one of the jurors, written on the day on which the trial had collapsed and the acquittals had been recorded, in which he expressed his deep displeasure. The letter, which can be found in paragraph 11.6 of the report, says:
	I, along with the majority of the jurors, had a good understanding of what was going on in the courtroom and I have taken exception to comments made by yourself
	the judge
	and Mr Upward
	the prosecutor
	in tonight's news coverage. It is being stated that you and other members of the court thought that we were unable to remember evidence from the early stages of the trial and thus a fair trial would prove impossible. Nobody asked for our comments and what we felt. Why would the majority of us be making notes? So that when we came to deliberate we could refer back to them and make informed decisions. I personally referred to my notes regularly during the trial and was thus able to compare evidence and make informed judgements as the case proceeded. To now be labelled an incompetent is not acceptable.
	These are important issues. I have to tell the Solicitor-General that I am troubled that on repeated occasions when we have come to consider the issues of juries in long fraud trials, we have appeared to be faced with a blank wall when we have confronted the Government. In a debate in the House on 21 June 2005, when a statement was made that there would be an end to juries in certain fraud trials, the Solicitor-General said:
	Stephen Wooler is indeed looking into the background of the Jubilee line trial and will no doubt make his report in due course, but the House needs to know when the Government have made a clear decision.[ Official Report, 21 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 658.]
	May I ask the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General, in the light of this extremely compelling and interesting report, to reconsider their position and to take on board the comments that have been made? Will the Solicitor-General also confirm the other point that was made so tellingly in the reportthat even if the Government's proposals in section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act had been implemented, the trial would almost certainly have taken place with a jury in any event? To use this case because of the waste of public money that has resulted is particularly pernicious, and I very much hope that the Attorney-General will stop doing it.
	The causes of the collapse have been correctly identified by the Solicitor-General, but one of them deserves special focus. The decision to charge conspiracy to defraud at common law was regarded by Mr. Wooler as muddling matters by introducing a charge that was vague and insufficiently particularised, and which, most remarkably, added 10 months to the trial when the issues surrounding it had to be fully explored.
	The Solicitor-General will know that as the Fraud Bill has made its way through the House, the Government have resolutely maintained that the law of conspiracy to defraud at common law must be retained. May we please have an assurance from the Solicitor-General that as the Report stage of the Bill has not yet been reached, he will give careful consideration to the comments made by Mr. Wooler as an example of the particular application of the charge of common law conspiracy? Is it not the case that the decision to charge conspiracy to defraud at common law was one of the most disastrous elements that led to the eventual collapse of the trial? There must be lessons from that. Even if we do not get rid of conspiracy to defraud at common law, I very much hope that the Solicitor-General can assure the House that the issue will be examined in the context of the guidelines that the Attorney-General has already published.
	The Solicitor-General will be aware of substantial criticisms of the way in which fraud has been handled by the Crown Prosecution Service in recent years. In saying that, I am very conscious of the fact that it is clear from the Solicitor-General's statement that steps have been taken to rectify the situation. But the House is entitled to be concerned to discover that this was an unintended consequence of setting up the Serious Fraud Office. Will the Solicitor-General give an assurance to the House that the way in which changes are brought about will be kept under close review? For example, in respect of cases such as this one, should the SFO be encouraged to expand its remit in bringing prosecutions, thereby taking them away from the Crown Prosecution Service? Otherwise, there will have to be two parallel centres of expertise, because in the light of the report it is clear that the lack of a centre of expertise within the CPS was a contributory cause of the prosecution's failure.
	The Solicitor-General mentioned that he was able to accept 10 of the 11 recommendations, and, obviously, I welcome that very much. In respect of the recommendation that he was unable to accept, I entirely understand why that cannot simply be done by the Government, because it concerned the involvement of the judiciary in the development of procedures to have a comprehensive view of cases, and particularly the role of judges in case management.
	I appreciate that that is a difficult issue. Judicial independence must be maintained. The judge in this case wasvery properlyunable to co-operate with the inquiry, and to have done so would have been a misconduct on her part. But it would be desirable if a mechanism could be found to help judges in an area that all experience suggests is very challenging, and where even the ablest of them often have difficulty. I very much hope that the Solicitor-General is able to indicate to the House that this matter is being properly progressed.

Mike O'Brien: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has raised his points and for his general welcome for the report of Stephen Wooler and his team, and I join him in thanking them for what they have done. They produced a very thorough report that dealt with all the issues that they were asked to cover, and we in this House are very grateful to them for that.
	The hon. Gentleman raised a number of issues. In relation to non-jury trials and section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, there is nothing in the report, as he indicated because he read the relevant part of it, that suggests that there is proof either way of whether non-jury trials are desirable. However, what my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said was not that the report somehow proved the case one way or the other, but that it was illustrative to a considerable degree of the challenges of presenting long and complex cases in front of a jurysuch as the way in which such cases had to be presented, the sheer length of them, and the enormous pressures on the jury.
	The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have agreed that the issues in relation to section 43 will be dealt with by way of a free-standing Bill, which will give us all the opportunity to look at the detailed arguments about non-jury trials. However, let me just say this: we are dealing with a suggestion in relation to not the 29,000 cases that are currently dealt with by juries, but perhaps half a dozen a yearup to a maximum of 20of the most serious cases, which represents a fraction of 1 per cent. We need to find ways in which not only blue collar crime, but the most complex fraud and white collar crime, can be tackled effectively. I support using juries in the vast majority of cases. However, for some cases I argue not that the jury cannot understand the evidenceI hear what the juror said about making notes, and I am sure that he was assiduous in ensuring that he followed the evidence with great carebut that very long trials impose an unacceptable burden on jurors.
	To make trials manageable, prosecutors often have to resort to tactics such as splitting complex cases into separate trials and reducing the number of counts on an indictment, and therefore the full culpability of criminals is frequently not exposed to a jury. We need to find a better way. We have repeatedly offered to discuss the matter with the Opposition to see if we can reach an agreement. That has not yet been possible, but I hope that between now and when we consider the Bill, we will have the opportunity to reach agreement.
	The benefits of section 43 are clear. The full criminality of an issue can be exposed. We should have shorter trials. The judges can read the papers, rather than them having to be presented orally before a jury. In that way, we should be able to expose the full criminality of such issues and ensure that criminals get their just desserts.
	The hon. Gentleman referred in particular to count two, which deals with conspiracy to defraud, but that was not the only cause of the collapse of the trial. There were other causes, such as the illness of a defendant and the slow and disjointed nature of the proceedings. But the fact that from an early stage the investigation did not focus on collecting all the evidence necessary to prove count two was a matter of some concern. The prosecution's failure to show in particular why London Underground Ltd was defrauded by the conspiracy referred to in count two caused a problem, but the judge did find on two occasions that it was a proper charge.
	Let me also add that we have had general discussions about conspiracy to defraud in debates on the Fraud Bill. The report does not recommend the repeal of conspiracy to defraud. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in our consultation on the Fraud Bill the majority of respondents asked us to keep conspiracy to defraud. The Rose Committee of senior judges said that it would be a big mistake to revoke it. In respect of the Fraud Bill, there will be forms of behaviour that will not be considered fraud under statutefor example, where a defendant plays his part in committing a crime but is ignorant of the wider details of the fraud, and where the final crime was committed by someone outside the immediate conspiracy.
	That said, let me make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that we hope to be able in due course to repeal conspiracy to defraud. The Government propose to have a review on that in about three years. In the meantime, the Attorney-General has produced guidelines which we hope will reduce the use of conspiracy to defraud, so that it is employed only where necessary.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about changes in respect of Crown prosecutions, and I assure him that we will continue to monitor the way in which they occur. The case management panels will have monthly reviews, and we hope that that will lead to an improvement in the standard of prosecutions. Recommendation six said that there should be a multidisciplinary approach, with investigators, prosecutors and accountantsand other experts where appropriateworking together as a team from the early stages of investigations. We want to see that that happens, too. However, I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks: we will continue to monitor such changes.
	The hon. Gentleman commented on the recommendation on judges. I entirely agree that it is important that we maintain judicial independencewe must ensure that the independence of the judge in question, who quite properly decided not to engage in the inquiry, is maintained. However, we will also have appropriate discussions with the judiciary to see what steps it wishes to take in the light of these recommendations.

Simon Hughes: I thank the Solicitor-General for his statement and his courtesies yesterday. I impute no criticism to him for the way that events have turned out. There was a robust set of questions and exchanges involving the Attorney-General yesterday in the House Lords, and I want to refer to some of them.
	I have a particular interest in this case as I am the MP for the constituency that was most affected by the Jubilee line extension. I join the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) in congratulating Mr. Wooler and his team; they clearly did a good job, and it was right of the Attorney-General to commission that inspection by the new body set up just for that purpose.
	The 11 recommendations raise many issues, but I hope that the Solicitor-General will agree that there abide three central issues, and I should add that much of what I say will reflect concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. There is the conspiracy to defraud issue; the issue that the failures were of the prosecution, not of the defence; and the issue that the principle of jury trial was not at fault. To paraphrase a much more famous selection from three, the greatest of these principles is that the principle of jury trial was not at fault.
	The first and third issues relate to the fact that the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General have, as it were, set themselves in opposition to the logic of the recommendations. I therefore join in encouraging Law Officers to retain their intention to get rid of the conspiracy to defraud charge at the earliest opportunity. More generally, when the Law Commission makes such recommendations, it should give both Houses the chance to debate them on the basis of a considered proposal put before us. Had it done so, we could have anticipated such issues and possibly prevented this serious and very expensive mistake.
	On the second issue, I wonder whether the Solicitor-General can give an answer that the Attorney-General was unable to give yesterday. The latter has accepted the proposed setting up of a fraud prosecution division, which, in effect, would reinstate under another name the arrangement that applied until a few years ago. How far has that proposal got? Has it been set up, and is it in place? If so, how many cases are now being looked after by these specialists within the London Crown Prosecution Service? It is clear that the Attorney-General has accepted that we need a structure that not only contains specialists, but has senior management control over all such cases.
	Thirdly, the Solicitor-General quoted the phrase used by the Attorney-General, who said that
	the case illustrates a good deal about the challenges of presenting long and complex cases in front of a jury.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 27 June 2006; Vol. 683, c. 1099.]
	Indeed it does, and the conclusion was that juries can cope. In the light of that, can the Solicitor-General confirm expressly that not until the Fraud Billthis issue has been debated during consideration of that Billhas been enacted and tested for some years, and not until the fraud review has had some years in which to be digested, will we have any suggestion from the Government that we need to look again at changes to the principle that juries deal with fraud cases? Having passed a significant Act through Parliament that deals with these issues, it would be nonsense then suddenly to say, We need to change the law.
	Finally, recommendation 5 sets out some very practical suggestions on how jurors should be dealt withmore respectfully and carefully, and simply more consideratelyparticularly in longer cases. May I have an assurance that those lessons will be learned, and that judges and courts will in future make it clear that jurorswho clearly can do the jobare respected for the job that they are willing to do, want to do and can do competently? They must be treated as a very important part of our democratic and constitutional systema system that we Liberal Democrats believe should be the principle for dealing with all serious cases in this country.

Mike O'Brien: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courteous reply, and particularly for what he said about the statementor lack of ityesterday. Let me deal first with his final point, about which he is quite right: we should improve the quality of our treatment of jurors. I have spoken to some people who have served on juries who were particularly concerned about the way in which they were dealt with. If we can find ways of making that experience a little easier for jurors, that would be very desirable. When a juror is dealing with an extremely long case, it is all the more important that any family and work-related issues that might arise are taken account of. That will always prove very difficult in long cases, and there will always be trials that last a long time, even if we bring into play section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. It is right that, in those circumstances, we should make sure that we do the best by those citizens who have given up their time to deal with such cases.
	Let me deal with what the hon. Gentleman said about jury trials. Mr. Justice Auld, in his report of 2001, made his views on this issue very clear:
	If I had to pick two of the most compelling factors in favour of reform, I would settle on the burdensome length and increasing speciality and complexity of these cases, with which jurors, largely or wholly strangers to the subject...are expected to cope. Both put justice at risk.
	He went on to say:
	I am firmly of the view that we should wait no longer before introducing a more just and efficient form of trial in serious and complex fraud cases.
	Mr. Justice McKinnon, who had to deal with the Blue Arrow case, said:
	No jury should be asked to cope with what this jury... had to endure
	in terms of a very long trial. The Court of Appeal said that, in that case,
	there was a significant risk of a miscarriage of justice resulting from the volume and complexity of the evidence.
	I have gone through the arguments about the way in which prosecutors ensure that cases can go on, and I shall not rehearse them. What we need to do now is to look seriously at how we can get a just outcome from these trials. I invite the hon. Gentlemanand, indeed, all the Opposition partiesto engage in serious discussions on how we can best deal with these cases.
	The Government want, in due course, to find circumstances in which we can repeal the common law offence of conspiracy to defraud, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We want to review that, probably in 2009we said that we will do so three years after the passage of the Fraud Bill, which, I assume, will go through this yearso that is the time scale that we are looking at.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about the fraud prosecution service, which has indeed come into existence. It is a new fraud unit that will harness the skills and experience of specialist fraud prosecutors, and Mr. David Kirk, a top private sector lawyer, has been appointed as its head. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman how many cases it has dealt with up to now. Given that its remit was established only recently, I suspect that it has yet to get many cases to trial; however, it will doubtless be investigating a number of such cases. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman, if he will allow me, with that information.

Iain Duncan Smith: I notice that, in their statements, the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General have somewhat quietly and carefully shifted the argument about jury trials: they are now talking about people being kept there too long, and the difficulty of sustaining such trials. May I take the Solicitor-General back to what happened at the collapse of the Jubilee line trial and the surrounding events? Previously, there had been a very strong implication that ordinary members of the public who make up juries in fraud cases could not be expected to understand the complexities involved. The issue was them and their abilities, and not so much the time that they spent in the pursuit of such trials.
	This report is more than just a blocker in terms of the attacks on juries; it actually upholds the principle of jury trials. When the jurors were interviewed, I was astonished to discover the amount of information that they retained, and their understanding and grasp of these so-called complex issues. Why, when such difficulties arise, do we, in this country alone, blame those who are determined to seek the balance, rather than those who bring the case? In America, under the procedures that apply there, a case was brought against Enron in six monthswith a jury.

Mike O'Brien: I invite the right hon. Gentleman to check the records, and if he does I think that he will find that the Government have never heavily relied on the Jubilee line case. Moreover, we have not argued the case that jurors are incapable of understanding such issuesthe problem is the burden that a vast amount of complex information and exhibits, presented to a jury over a very long period, place on any juror. The process of oral presentation of evidence takes a very long time, but it could be dealt with by a judge very quickly; it could even be dealt with by a judge sitting with assessors, which is one suggestion that Lord Justice Auld looked at.
	We must treat this issue with a great deal more seriousness. There is a tendency to fall back on the view that this is somehow an attack on juries, but it is not: it is an attempt to find a way to get justice, so that the full criminality of those who commit very complex fraud can be brought before a court and dealt with fully and properly.
	The right hon. Gentleman made an interesting point about the United States of America. We have been examining the circumstances there with a great deal of care. The US deals with cases, particularly complex fraud cases, in a very different way. Perhaps the most significant difference is the frequent use of plea bargaining. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will consider the range of lessons to be learned not only from the United States, but from Hong Kong and other countries and jurisdictions. That might form part of the wider fraud review that we hope will report by the summer and will be able to lead us towards better ways of dealing with complex fraud investigations, as well as prosecutions.

Shailesh Vara: Reference has been made to the 11 recommendations in the report, 10 of which have been substantially accepted. Can the Solicitor-General give the House an assurance that measures will be put in place to ensure that those proposals are not only properly implemented, but monitored to see whether any alterations need to be made?

Mike O'Brien: Yes, I can give that reassurance. We have already had discussions with the Director of Public Prosecutions. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the director of the Serious Fraud Office is also aware of the full implications of the report. Its recommendations are important. We want them to be fully implemented, and we will monitor the situation to ensure that they are.

Peter Bone: I find it hard to believe that the Government's proposal to do without trials is due to the length of time that they take. The Solicitor-General let the cat of the bag a moment ago when he said that we are not getting enough convictions. Is not the truth of the matter that the CPS cannot present its cases well enough to get convictions, and that is why it wants to do away with juries?

Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman does a disservice to the CPS. Certainly, the report made some criticisms of its handling of this case, but in many other trials it has handled fraud matters very well. There is a need for improvement. That is why certain reforms have been put in place, particularly since the statement made in 2003 by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General about changing the way in which cases are considered. We want the prosecution of fraud to be carried out properly and effectively. That is not only about getting more convictions, but about securing justice, and justice requires that those who have committed an offence have the full extent of their culpability exposed before a court so that they can be properly dealt with by the criminal justice system. I am concerned that the way in which prosecutions occur at the moment, with indictments being split and the number of counts being reduced, sometimes means that there is not a full exposure of that level of culpability. We need to consider that seriously, as putting our heads in the sand and being blind to it has taken us nowhere.

Points of Order

Anne Main: I need your help and advice on this matter, Mr. Speaker. On 26 April, I asked the former Home Secretary whether foreign nationals due for deportation were placed on the sex offenders register if they had committed a serious sexual offence, and the answer was not quite as clear as I had hoped. With your indulgence, I raised a point of order on 2 May, but still did not get a clear answer. I tabled questions on 4 May seeking information, but I have not received a holding reply. I subsequently asked a named day question, to be answered on 19 June, about the delays in answering my questions. Again, I have not even received a holding response. Given this clearly unacceptable situation, can you give me any advice on how I can gain the information that I seek?

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order. As I have said on several occasions recently, it is important that Ministers give timely answers to parliamentary questions. I know that the Leader of the House shares that view, and I have no doubt that he will read what the hon. Lady has said on the record in tomorrow's  Hansard. I hope that he will pursue this matter. I would also say to the hon. Lady that in my experience perseverance is a very important thing in this House, and she should persevere.

Michael Penning: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I am sure that you are aware, on 11 December the largest explosion that Europe has seen since the second world war took place in my constituency. It not only had catastrophic effects on the environment, but put nearly 4,000 jobs at risk. On the following day, I praised the Deputy Prime Minister for coming to the House to make a statement, but since then, more than six months later, not one ministerial statement, oral or written, has been made to the House about the effects of Buncefield and the ongoing inquiry. May I seek your advice, Mr. Speaker, on how we can get a Minister of any Department to come here to tell us what is going on?

Mr. Speaker: I always say to hon. Members that if Ministers will not answer questions, the answer is to seek an Adjournment debate so that they are brought to the Floor of the House. I advise the hon. Gentleman to do that.

Ministerial and other Salaries (Amendment)

Jeremy Browne: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 so as to reduce from 83 to 60 the total number of Ministerial salaries payable by virtue of paragraph 2(c) of Part V of Schedule 1.
	I appreciate that some Members may think that the title of the Bill is not as clear as it might be, so let me briefly explain its intention. It would reduce the number of Members serving at Cabinet level, Minister of State level and Parliamentary Under-Secretary level from 83, the current limit, to 60. It would not reduce the number of Whips or Parliamentary Private Secretaries, although if separate legislation were brought forward to that effect I would certainly support it.
	My central proposition is that there are too many Government Ministers. It may help the House if I provide some background. In 1900, at the start of the last century, when Britain ran large parts of the world, the total number of paid ministerial posts was 60. By the middle of the century, in 1950, when Britain was starting to extract itself from some, if not all, of those obligations, but large parts of the domestic economy had been brought within public ownership, the number of paid Government posts had risen from 60 to 81. By 1999, when Britain was neither running large parts of the world nor had large parts of the domestic economy within the public sector, the number of Ministers had, funnily enough, risen still further to 106.
	The situation with the total payroll vote is even worse. At the time of the April 1992 general electionyou may be surprised to learn, Mr. Speaker, that that was the first time I was eligible to votethe total number of people on the payroll was 125. By December 2004, shortly before I was elected to this House, it had risen to 151, largely because during that period the number of PPSs had risen from 41 to 62a 50 per cent. increase. It is particularly striking and extraordinary that, despite devolution to Scotland and, to a more limited extent, Wales, there still has not been a reduction in the total number of Ministers.
	As an aside, I am in favour of reducing the overall number of Members of Parliament. I am aware that there are exceptional cases involving particularly large or remote communities such as Orkney and Shetland or the Isle of Wight. Nevertheless, if, at the last general election, every constituency had had the same number of voters as Taunton, my constituency, the House would have 518 MPs instead of 646128 fewer, or a reduction of approximately 20 per cent. Happily, other Members have made the case for reducing the number of MPs, including the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) in his publication, Pruning the Politiciansthe case for a smaller House of Commons, which was published in December 2004 and which I recommend to the House.
	However, my Bill is concerned with reducing the number of Ministers. I want to give three reasons for doing so, in ascending order of importance. The first is to save money. It is difficult to predict the exact cost of reducing the number of Ministers, but each Cabinet Minister costs 74,902 extra in salary alone and, of course, there are many associated costs of supporting a Minister in office.
	The second reason is to make Parliament more effective, something that has been raised in this House on a number of occasions. In 2000, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr. Kennedy) said that
	far too many people are on the payroll in the House...There are too many parliamentary private secretaries and too many people are beholden to the Executive interests of the day. Not enough Members feel free to express independent interests from a Back-Bench point of view.[ Official Report, 13 July 2000; Vol. 353, c. 1106.]
	That view is not advanced only by members of my party. In its report Strengthening Parliament, the Norton commissionestablished by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) when he was Conservative leader recommended a reduction in the size of the Government and had three specific proposals: that the size of the Cabinet be capped at 20; that the number of junior Ministers be capped at 50; and that there should be only one PPS per Department, responsible to the Cabinet Minister. That is broadly in line with what I am proposing this afternoon.
	Another Conservative leader, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), has also proposed a smaller Government Bill, which in addition to reducing the number of MPs would cut the number of Ministers by 20 per cent; again, approximately what I am proposing this afternoon.
	The distinguished political commentator Peter Riddell, in his book Parliament under Blair, called for
	the magnet of attraction of front bench needs to be reduced
	and went on to argue that this could be done in two ways:
	first by reducing the number of ministers in the Commons; and, secondly, by increasing the attractions of service on select committees.
	A distinguished body of opinion supports my assertion this afternoon that Parliament would be more effective if there were fewer Ministers.
	My final and most important point is that I think that reducing the number of Ministers would make the Government more efficient. I will look at a number of Departments and see if I can convince the House. At the moment, the Home Officea Home Office Minister is here, fortuitously, for the debatehas seven Ministers, a large number. If ministerial numbers were the determining factor for judging the success of the Home Office, it would be widely admired for its competence and efficiency; sadly that is not the case. Were the number of Ministers to increase, I do not believe that the Home Office would become any more effective or efficient. The problem with the Home Office is the decision-making mechanisms, the inadequate structures and the lines of accountability. If anything, more Ministers would make the situation even worse.
	The second Department to which I shall draw attention is the Department of Trade and Industry. The House may recall that at the last general election my party argued for the abolition of the DTI . I do not believe that there is a need for an interventionist Department that is directed at political interference in commercial matters and at propping up failing industries against market and consumer demand. The DTI is a throwback to the days of large-scale intervention in the economy. It is no longer appropriate to a modern, liberal market economy based on competition and consumer choice.
	If we go back to the 1970s, when steel, coal, water and the national airline were in public ownership, we can see that there was a case for a Department of Trade and Industry. The case is far less compelling now. I would argue that the Department should be abolished and some of its functions transferred. However, we still have six DTI Ministers.
	In conclusion, I refer to two other Departments. The first is the Cabinet Office. It is hard to know where the Deputy Prime Minister resides in the current Government structure, but there are three Cabinet Ministers in the Cabinet Office: the Deputy Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancastera new post created as a consolation prize for the right hon. Member for North-West Durham (Hilary Armstrong)[ Interruption.] The specific title of the Chancellor of the Duchy's responsibilities is new. The third is the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Salford (Hazel Blears). It escapes me why the chairman of the Labour party's salary ought to be paid out of public finances. However, all three of them are entitled to attend Cabinet meetings.
	Traditionally, the interests of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have been represented in Cabinet by the Foreign Secretary. Now, three of the four Ministers in that Department are entitled to attend the Cabinetthe Foreign Secretary, the Minister for Europe, the right hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), and the Minister for Trade, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney).
	In conclusion, my point may be best illustrated by drawing the House's attention to the fact that, for 183 days, nobody occupied the position of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that not a single constituent of mine complained about the Government discharging their duties less effectively during that 183-day period. That illustrates more than anything the need for fewer Ministers.
	This is the nubwhat is needed is better, more accountable, less remote and value-for-money government. What is not needed is a hugely inflated Executive that acts as a job-creation scheme, costs public money, diminishes the role of Parliament and militates against effective government. I urge the House to support my Bill.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jeremy Browne.

Ministerial and other Salaries (Amendment)

Mr. Jeremy Browne accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 so as to reduce from 83 to 60 the total number of Ministerial salaries payable by virtue of paragraph 2(c) of Part V of Schedule 1: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October, and to be printed [Bill 203].

Police

Tony McNulty: I beg to move,
	That the draft Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Code of Practice C and Code of Practice H) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.
	I am sure that hon. Members will recall the debates that we had during the passage of what became the Terrorism Act 2006in particular, the lengthy debates on section 23, which amends schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 to extend the maximum period of detention of terrorist suspects from 14 to 28 days. Members will know that the purpose of the order is not to revisit that debate or its substance, but is specific to the code of practice under PACEthe Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984and I want to concentrate on that.
	Colleagues will remember that the issue in relation to pre-charge detention was that the changing nature of terrorist activity meant that the existing maximum period of detention, 14 days, was no longer considered adequate. The strong advice that we received from the police was that terrorist investigations are now more complex. They may involve, for example, the need to de-encrypt computer equipment or to obtain evidence from overseas; they may require the translation of large numbers of documents. This led the police to conclude that they might need to hold terrorist suspects for up to 90 days. I say that purely by way of context, rather than to reopen the debate on that matter. Following a debate in Parliamenta debate that I am sure we all remember with acute fondnessit was agreed to extend the maximum period of detention available to the police to 28 days.
	The subject today is limited to the new code of practice on the detention of terrorist suspects. The Government agreed during the debates on the Terrorism Act 2006 that a new PACE code of practice would be issued before the extended period of detention was brought into force. It was agreed that there should be a new code of practice rather than an amendment to the existing PACE code of practice on the detention, treatment and questioning of persons by police officerscode Cbecause it was felt that the procedures around holding terrorist suspects were different enough to justify a separate code.

Douglas Hogg: The Minister has been clear about his wish not to revisit the time periods; I understand that. But will he confirm that if this House did not approve the codes, it would not be possible for him to move from the existing period of detention to the extended one?

Tony McNulty: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for staying within the strictures of the debate, although it is tempting to do otherwise. I can confirm, as I believe we have already clearly stated, that the new code of practice should be laid before the commencement of the new order to increase the period from 14 to 28 days.

Douglas Hogg: I am sorry to interrupt, but I believe that it goes further than that. My understanding of the statute and of the Government's commitment is that the period of detention will not and cannot be extended unless the House approves the code.

Tony McNulty: I am sorry, but that is exactly what I have already said. That is entirely the position. As it says on the tail end of the code rather than the order, the extension from 14 to 28 days will come into effect only the day after the code of practice has been laid for the requisite timeto 24 July, I believe. The link between the two is exactly what the Government promised, and that is what has prevailed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right in that regard.
	Within that context, it was felt right and proper that, rather than amend the existing code C, we should bring in an entirely new code of practicecode Hnot least because we were exhorted to do so by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). The proposal for a new code was supported by Opposition Members, and rightly reflected the fact that in this area detailed guidance to the police was requireda point with which we concur.
	The order before us today brings into force a new PACE code of practice on the detention, treatment and questioning of terrorist suspects arrested under section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The new PACE code is to be known as code H. I hope that hon. Members will not press me on why H, rather than a letter between C and H, was chosen; I can find out but I do not know off the top of my head. The order also brings into force a revised version of PACE code C. At the moment, as I said, code C deals with the detention, treatment and questioning of both terrorist suspects arrested under section 41 and non-terrorist suspects. The order simply removes all reference to terrorist suspects from code C, which still prevails for all non-terrorist suspects.
	The new PACE code that deals with terrorist suspects arrested under section 41 recognises the special arrangements needed for the effective investigation and welfare of those detainees, which was the import of our deliberations on the issue. It reflects the results of a consultation held between 2 May and 23 Maya necessarily truncated consultation that took place with the indulgence of Opposition parties. We received a total of 26 responses to the consultation from a number of organisations and individuals, including the Association of Chief Police Officers, Liberty, the Law Society, the Criminal Bar Association and Lord Carlile. The overall response to the draft code was positive. The main points raised related to the security of investigations, the provision of medical attention and the transfer of detainees to prison.
	The security of operations is, of course, paramount and we have included an extra note for guidance to clarify an important difference between the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000. That recognises that a reason for arrest must always be given, but that there may be circumstances in which it is not appropriate to disclose sensitive details.
	We believe that the provisions for medical attention are robust. Detainees are subject to initial and ongoing assessment by custody officers, who must ensure that they receive appropriate clinical attention where necessary. The draft code expands on existing provisions by ensuring that detainees receive a routine daily health care visit after the first 96 hours in police custody.

Richard Shepherd: Will the Minister say more about the human rights implications of code H, and its compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998?

Tony McNulty: I would like to say that I am shocked to hear the hon. Gentleman raise the Human Rights Act, but I am not. I am not surprised, and it is a fair question. Of course, no Government Minister, as far as I am aware, stands at the Dispatch Box to promote any legislation of any description without it being duly compatible with all the assorted human rights provisions in statute, including the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998. That is entirely the case, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for teasing such an admission out of me. I have no doubt that he will refer to it again subsequently when he gets his chance, as I hope he will, to contribute to our very narrow debate on the codes of practice before us.
	As I said, the draft code expands on existing provisions, and a number of respondents, quite fairly, mentioned the potential effect of prolonged detention on the reliability of a detainee's answers during interview. Annexe (g) of the new code H contains general guidance to help police officers and health care professionals assess whether a detainee might be at risk in an interview, which emphasises the importance of ascertaining a detainee's fitness to be interviewed.
	The parts about transfer to prison produced a number of responses, some in favour and some against. Transfer to prison will ensure that detainees are held in establishments that have the experience and facilities to deal with prolonged detention. The proposal is strongly recommended by Lord Carlile, owing to concerns that police stations are not intended or suitable for detention beyond the current maximum of 14 days. As a result of the consultation, we have included an additional requirement for police to inform a detainee's legal adviser before transfer to prison takes place and for efforts to be made to inform any other persons who may have been informed previously of the person's detention.
	With those changes, we believe that the new code ensures that detainees are treated properly, while at the same time enabling investigations to be carried out effectively. Terrorism remains a huge international challenge, particularly for democracies, which must strive to protect individual liberties while at the same time ensuring collective security. I hope that the House agrees that the codes that we are planning to introduce get that balance right within the narrow confines of the narrow debate on the code of practice that applies when we move from 14 to 28 days [Interruption.] However narrowly or otherwise, I commend the order to the House.

Nick Herbert: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the purpose of the codes. This order concerns the most serious matters that the House could discuss: the prevention of terrorism and the extent to which the deprivation of liberty, sanctioned by the state, is justified to ensure that aim. We all agree about the need to counter the very serious threat of terrorism facing this country, and we all agree that ensuring the safety of the public must be the first duty of any Government.
	I agree with the Minister that there is no need to rehearse the debate about whether detaining terrorist suspects without charge for 90 days was justified. The Government lost the argument and lost the vote, but in the furore caused by that proposal, it is often overlooked that Parliament agreed to a significant extension of the period of time for which terrorist suspects can be detained without charge. In fact, we agreed to double the period from 14 to 28 days.
	Let me remind the House of why these new codes of practice are being discussed. It was the official Opposition who called for them. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) called for
	a completely separate set of PACE codes to cover terrorist cases in which detention is to last more than seven days,
	pointing out that the current codes were
	not designed to deal with people under long-term detention.[ Official Report, 2 November 2005; Vol. 438, c. 901.]
	The then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) replied that he understood the points being made and was
	ready to come back to the House with a solution that will deal with this in an effective way. We recognise that the concerns raised by Opposition Front Benchers are genuine...I am prepared to give an assurance that we will consider the issues that have been raised.[ Official Report, 2 November 2006; Vol. 438, c. 919.]
	A week later, on Report, the Home Secretary said:
	We welcome that suggestion... we can see grounds for having a separate code,
	and agreed with what my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield had argued, saying:
	Such a code would be laid before Parliament and be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure...I can give a firm guarantee that the appropriate codes and their equivalents will be brought forward.[ Official Report, 9 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 329.]
	The then Home Secretary gave a firm guarantee back in November. The Government had almost five months between then and the Terrorism Bill receiving Royal Assent on 30 March to prepare a consultation paper on the draft code. Why was that consultation paper not published immediately after the Bill received Royal Assent? It took until May before the Home Office got round to consulting on the code at all. The code is certainly important, which is why we suggested its revision, but it has not been controversial. The need for it was agreed on all sides. As the Minister said, the Home Office received 26 responses to its consultation paper and they were described as generally positive. So why the delay?
	After my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) raised the matter on 8 June, the Prime Minister claimed:
	The reason that we are unable to introduce it
	the 28-day provision
	quickly is that the Conservatives insisted on a longer consultation period, which prevented us from doing that.[ Official Report, 14 June 2006; Vol. 447, c. 763.]
	How could he possibly claim that? We did not insist on a longer consultation period. We said that a new code of practice would be needed. Are the Government now saying that they would have preferred to introduce 28-day detention without the safeguard of a code?
	The delay has been unnecessary and is the result of the now all too familiar Home Office incompetence. Consequently, one year after the atrocities on 7 July and almost eight months after the Home Secretary's guarantee, the provisions on the extension of detention without trial will still not be in force. The Prime Minister claimed that powers to detain terrorist suspects for longer were
	responsible, right and necessary to protect this country's security.[ Official Report, 9 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 299.]
	In that case, was not it responsible, right and necessary to introduce the code without delay so that the new powers could be implemented?
	The Prime Minister first revealed that the Government were considering a longer period to detain suspects without charge at his infamous press conference on 5 August last year. From that point, it should have been obvious to the Government that safeguards would be necessary to ensure the proper treatment of people detained for unprecedented periods of time. Why did not work on those safeguards begin then? Why were they not included when the draft Terrorism Bill was published in September?
	The Government cannot claim that somehow we caused the delay by opposing the provision to detain suspects for 90 days. First, we supported 28 days. Secondly, whatever the extended length of detention beyond the current 14 days, it should have been clear that a new code was needed to ensure proper safeguards.

Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend says that we supported 28 days. That is true in a limited sense. We opposed 90 days and 60 days. Many of us would have preferred the existing 14 days. My hon. Friends who supported 28 days did so only to avoid the longer period.

Nick Herbert: I respect my right hon. and learned Friend's point of view on the matter. He has clearly and consistently made known his objections to any extension beyond 14 days. Nevertheless, it was the official Opposition's position that we would support 28 days, and we did that.
	Let us consider the practical consequences of delay. The suspects who were detained after the police raids in Forrest Gate earlier this month have now been released. There appears to be no evidence linking them to terrorist acts that would justify their detention. However, what if that had not been the case? What if police intelligence, which, in the words of the Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis,
	raised serious concerns for public safety ,
	had been correct? What if the police had needed to hold the suspects for longer than 14 days to gather evidence and perhaps prevent another atrocity? They would not have been able to do so.  [Interruption.] If the Home Secretary disagrees, he should intervene. Surely the police could not have detained the suspects for longer than 14 days. It is self-evident, because the order has not commenced.
	The House agreed the necessity for a longer period of detention in November. Eight months later, the measure remains unavailable to the police. The delay, according to the Prime Minister's argument, has put national security at risk. That is consistent with the Government's record on law and orderlong on grandstanding gestures to capture headlines, short on the practical measures of ordinary competence that are necessary to ensure public safety.
	The Home Secretary has conceded that
	from time to time
	the Home Office
	is dysfunctional in the sense that it does not work.
	Rather than blaming officials, when will the Government accept that Ministers have responsibility for their Departments, and are responsible for the delay?
	I have two specific questions about the operation of the new code H. It provides for the transfer to a designated prison
	as soon as is practicable
	of suspects for whom a warrant has been issued authorising detention for more than 14 days, unless the detainee requests to remain in a police station, or it would otherwise hinder or delay the investigation. The Minister explained that Lord Carlile, the Government's adviser, strongly recommended the provision. Why 14 days, which appears to be an arbitrary limit? Half the respondents to the consultation were in favour of the ability to transfer prisoners to a prison, but half were against.
	Justice stated:
	Although we recognise that police detention facilities are not suited for prolonged detention, imprisoning persons who have not been charged with a criminal offence seems to us to blur a fundamental distinction between pre-charge detention and detention on remand. In practical terms, we are also concerned that it could lead to interference with a suspect's right to access legal advice.
	Will the Minister confirm whether that is the case? How will the proper legal requirements for the conduct of interviews and so on be ensured in prison? Will prisoners have to be transferred back to properly equipped police cells for interviews?
	Secondly, the code provides that detainees may receive visits from friends, family or others, at the custody officer's discretion. To what extent will that provision be subject to supervision or review? Should such visits be left to the discretion of a single custody officer? What appeal procedure will be available if the custody officer decides not to allow the visits?
	The Minister will appreciate that the detention of suspects for such periods will inevitably be controversial. We need only look back a few weeks to the detention of the suspects in Forest Gate to realise that that is the case. Granting visits to suspects will therefore be important, and there should be proper accountability and supervision.
	I hope that the Minister can answer our constructive questions and that the House will support the code so that the powers, which the House has agreed are needed to counter terrorism, can be brought into force without further delay.

Lynne Featherstone: Liberal Democrats strongly opposed the extension of detention without charge from 14 days to 90 days. We voted against the measure on Second Reading principally because we regarded the proposal as a breach of the ancient and fundamental right of habeas corpus, and the right to know the basis on which one is held and to challenge it in the courts.
	The terrorism that threatens the safety of our citizens at this time in history has meant an uneasy rebalancing of the scales. The Government's desire for 90-day detention was not supported by any case that was made sufficiently satisfactorily to gain the votes of a majority of hon. Members, and the provision fell. The 28-day detention period is the limit to which Liberal Democrats felt able to go without abdicating our commitment to civil liberties, which we in the United Kingdom value so deeply. It represents a doubling of existing police powersit is quite an extension.
	Although I shall restrict myself narrowly, in the way in which the Minister desires us to do, I must stress that we voiced concerns about the original proposal. The longer that a person is held in custody, the greater the likelihood that a court will eventually realise that any evidence was obtained under duress. Code H is therefore important because whatever evidence is obtained must be valuable and valid in order to be presented in a court.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) that, for something that was so urgent and pressing, the extraordinary delay in its implementation beggars belief. The Government explain it by citing work and consultation on the code of practice, but I understand that the work did not even commence until a month after Royal Assent.
	We have previously agreed that a separate code of practice should be produced for those detained after arrest under section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Given that that has been done, we are minded to support the Government. However, I should like the Minister to expand on some aspects of the code.
	Will there be extra training for those who supervise the detention or will they simply receive normal prison training? What supervision will there be of what happens to detainees during their sojourn before charge? To whom will relatives complain or present their problems? How will we know about such matters? Will those detained under the 28-day rule come under the inspection regime of the prison or will there be a special inspection for them?
	It is crucial that individuals held for 28 days be treated in such a way that their detention does not inflame the sensitivities of the communities from which they are likelyat least at presentto come. While it may be necessaryand we have now agreed to itto remove liberty before charge for 28 days to gather evidence, it is crucial that the conduct of that detention should not exacerbate the present tinderbox situation. We have all seen the events in Forest Gate. I support the police going in to investigate, but it is crucial that their behaviour does not further damage community relations.
	On the issue of the detention of those younger than usual, I refer to the recent arrest and detention of two 16-year-olds. The Minister indicates that it was only one, but the principle is the same, whether it is one, two or 10. Will he say how younger people will be supported during the period of detention? Will they be flanked by adults to support them while providing evidence?
	If the Minister can give satisfactory answers to those questions, the Liberal Democrats will support the motion, and if and when detention for 28 days without charge comes into practice, I hope that it is used appropriately and professionally.

Douglas Hogg: Much of the ground has been covered in the substantive debates on the Terrorism Act 2006, so I shall be brief. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) said that he hoped that the code would be passed by the House, but I take a different view, not because of the contents of the code, but because the passage of the code is a condition present to the extension of the time period for detention from 14 days to 28 days. If one takes the view, as I do, that we should not extend the period of detention, one inevitably has to oppose the code, even if it is an improvement on the current position.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) was right to secure an undertaking from the Government that a code would be published and brought to the Floor of the House. He should be commended for that, but the essential point is whether we want to extend the period of detention. If the answer is no, the House should not pass the code. It is not necessary, desirable, just or proportionate to increase the period of detention from 14 days to 28 days. It also increases the risk of injustice. Anyone who practises in the criminal courts, as I do regularly, knows very well that the period of detention is a time of great stress for the detained person. If the period is an extended one, those detained are capable of wrongly incriminating themselves. We are embarking on a course of action that is likely to have that effect, and it is primarily for that reason that I opposed the extension of the detention period when we debated it last year.
	I have also expressed, on many occasions, my dissatisfaction with the process. Statutory instruments and codes are not amendable, but they can have a heavy impact on the rights of citizens. This code is an important document. It has been the subject of consultation, and one is grateful for that, but the House cannot amend it. We must either approve it as a whole or reject it. Matters of this kind should be amendable, which could be achieved by putting them into the schedule of the Bill. I regard this as a very unsatisfactory process. Matters of this kind should be dealt with under primary legislation, and when they are detailed and complex they should be included in schedules, so that they are amendable.
	I am awarewe have just heard so from the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone)that there will be no support for voting to oppose the order. I therefore do not propose to divide the House, but I do protest against what we are doing and against the extension of the detention period. To anybody who says that the Conservative party signed up to 28 days, I admit that that is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs said in terms. But we did so because a 28-day period was a darn sight better than 90 or 60 days. It was the best deal that we could make. That is not an assertion of principle, but of pragmatic fact, andspeaking for myselfI am thoroughly against an extension of the detention period to 28 days.

Richard Shepherd: My heart sank when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said that he did not propose to divide the House on this matter. I support the arguments that he advanced, especially on the relationship of statutory instruments to primary legislation and the fact that they are not available at the time of consideration of the original legislation. In fact, the Modernisation Committee is considering the process of legislation and may make recommendations on that point.
	I shall concentrate on the issue of civil liberties, paragraphs 7.2 and 7.3 in the guidance notes, and on the statement made by the Minister of State that
	In my view the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Code of Practice C and Code of Practice H) Order 2006 are compatible with the Convention rights.
	I asked him about that and, like most Ministers nowadays, he gaily asserted that it is a matter of routine. My objections, like those of my right hon. and learned Friend, revolve around the most basic concepts of what Britain stands for and our civil liberties. It is unconscionable that a person should be held without charge for 28 days. Fourteen days is an awfully long time, but we are talking about six weeks in the life of an individual. If the provisions are misused, careers will be wrecked, families may be broken up and great financial burdens will be imposed.
	It is cynically suggested that we should accept such provisions because they will eventually be shipwrecked in the House of Lords by a judgment declaring their incompatibility. However, the statutory instrument gives us an opportunity to reflect on the provision's incompatibility with the European convention on human rights and the possibility that the Law Lords will rule in that way. That is the judgment of many well-regarded lawyers. I suggest that it is cynical to fail to address head-on the relationship between the case law and the status of the European Court of Justice, because that is what the Government are doing. They are playing with the themes. They have brought us to the point where British citizens may be held for up to 28 days without knowing what they are charged with. That is contrary to the traditions of our common law and our history of liberty, and it is very difficult for people in those circumstances to mount a defence.
	I am opposed to the code of practiceboth emotionally and because of who I am and whom I representbecause I believe that the Government's declaration of compatibility is fraudulent.

Greg Knight: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. What period of detention would he regard as acceptable?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must intervene, as we are not discussing the period of detention but rather the code of practice that applies to legislation already agreed in the House.

Richard Shepherd: I understand, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is why I have tried to focus on the fact that the code is a crucial part of the 2006 Act, and a requirement of it. A successful vote against the motion would shipwreck the concept of 28 days. However, I know that that concept will inevitably be shipwrecked in any case, under the existing arrangements that the Government have put in place to protect Britain, by the European Court of Human Rights.

Tony McNulty: With the leave of the House, I shall try and deal with some of the points raised in this appropriately narrow debate. I do not want to attack or challenge the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) or the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). They have merely been consistent in wanting to kick against a trend that they think they have detected. They believe that important matters are increasingly dealt with through statutory instruments, codes of practice and so on rather than in primary legislation. I do not agree with that, but I accept the broad parliamentary point.
	I also accept the consequence of consistencythat those who oppose the original proposition in a Bill are being entirely consistent when they oppose it when it crops up in a statutory instrument or code of practice that flows from the Bill. I do not underestimate the integrity of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills or of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. What they say is entirely fair and reasonable. I do not agree with them, about either the parliamentary or the substantive point, but I admire them for their consistency.
	In passing, even in my short time in the House I heard those views expressed extremely eloquently many times by the late right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. The position is perfectly acceptable, it is just that I do not agree with it. However, I appreciate that it is right and proper to express those views in the narrow confines of this debatewhich was spoiled only when the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) came clodhopping in with his attempt to make it far broader than had been intended.
	I turn now to some of the specific questions that were raised. It is of course envisaged that, if the police need to interview detainees after they have been transferred to prison, arrangements will be made for them to be moved back to the appropriate police station. That is entirely in keeping with the needs of an investigation, and there is no restriction of access to legal advice when a detainee is in prison. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) asked about that and I hope that my response has reassured him.
	The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) asked about terrorist detainees in prison. As with all prisoners, they will come under the regime of Her Majesty's inspector of prisons. Importantly, Lord Carlile, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has said that he will take a close interest in all aspects of the proposed extended detention. I welcome that, given that his original brief was to oversee all aspects of the legislation.

Dominic Grieve: Usually, a very detailed record is kept of what happens when a prisoner is detained in a police station. It is very useful, as any allegation of duress, or that a confession was obtained under pressure, can be refuted by allowing the prosecution to look at the record. However, I am concerned that that record will not be kept in the same way when a person is detained in prison. As a result, the prosecution might be at a considerable disadvantage if it is alleged that pressure has been applied through some mechanism while that person was in prison.

Tony McNulty: That is an entirely reasonable point, although it may not be germane to the integrity of the code of practice. However, it may be worth pursuing, and I accept that custodial records and the evidentiary base available when a person is detained in a police station will be markedly different from what happens in a prison. I shall therefore explore the implications and get back to the hon. Gentleman on that.
	I come now to the question of the 14-day period before transfer to prison. The initial period of detention is often the time when the police need immediate and direct access to the person detained, and the present period of 14 days in police detention has been shown to work adequately. Even Lord Carlile was more concerned about what happens after the 14-day period, during the extended period up to the 28-day limit, as it is clear that police cells are not built to cope with a doubling of the detention period.
	Our experience is that the problems are not as marked with detention periods of up to 14 days as may be the case with the longer period. Although I recognise Lord Carlile's point, I do not think that the 14-day cut-off point is arbitrary, as it is based on experience. We recognise that the exceptional nature of the extension introduced by the 2006 Act requires an extra safeguard, and that is why we regard the 14-day cut-off as an appropriate time for transfer.
	I mean no disrespect to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs, but it is not really appropriate to go on about how long it has taken to bring the code before the House. Royal Assent was secured for the 2006 Act only on 30 March this year. By any standard, given the necessity of detailed assessment of the points raised in the consultation process and the urgency of the matter at hand, the Government have been rather speedy in getting the code before the House. It is very easy to ask why it could not have been written and subject to consultation before the Bill was secured, but that would have been rather presumptuousafter all, the Bill could have been changed markedly as a result of the deliberations in this House and the other place.
	I have heard people reminisce wistfully about the debates that we had on the Bill, which could never have been called non-contentious. It could never have been claimed that the Government would be able to secure their business come what mayand that indeed turned out not to be the caseso it was never going to be possible to have written the code of practice and subjected it to consultation long before the Bill even came before the House.
	The Government lost the odd vote on the Bill, which was highly contentious. It was therefore right and proper for us to wait until it secured full assent. I do not recall exactly how the votes went, but we could have been left with a pre-charge detention period lasting 14 days, 28 daysor no days at all. Any result different from what was obtained would have made a difference to the code of practice, or put in doubt whether we needed one at all.
	I want to say, in the nicest possible way, that the remarks made by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs were unbecoming. I shall not go anywhere near describing the most unbecoming rant of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), who purports to be the shadow Leader of the House. Given the investigations that were going on at the time, I am sure that she will agree, on reflection, that it would have been better if she had not said what she did say.
	In passing, it might also have been nice if the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs had, when talking about the incident at Forest Gate, said clearly and on the record that he fully supported the police in their actions in carrying out the raid. We cannot second-guess what the police seek to do before or after an event, particularly afterwards when we have the benefit of hindsight. I accept that it is perfectly in order to comment on Forest Gate, but it might have been useful if the hon. Gentleman had prefaced what he said with remarks endorsing what the police did.
	None the less, for all the cheapish comments

Nick Herbert: Cheapish?

Tony McNulty: They were not completely cheap, but cheapish, in line with the hon. Gentleman's usual

Oliver Heald: Very good value.

Tony McNulty: It is far from that. Cheapish is right this time. There was some value, so his remarks were not just cheap, but they were unnecessarily partisan and

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. As the Minister said, this is a very narrow debate [Laughter.] Perhaps we might return to the code of practice.

Tony McNulty: Thank you very much indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, for intervening to get me off that track. I suppose I should draw the lesson that when I mean to insult someone I should just do it rather than trying to insult them politely.
	I resent the charge from the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that national security and public safety were somehow put at risk because of the consultation period on the code of practice. That is simply not the case.
	In my next breath, however, let me say that the Bill is in a far, far better place than it was because of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there should be a code of practice and that it should be separate from the regular PACE code. In both regards, he was entirely right and I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) endorsed what he said so that we could come back today. That shows how we can move forward on a consensual basis to improve the lot of people who will be affected. It is important that matters should be dealt with in this way.
	I make no charge against the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills because I fully accept their integrity and the legitimacy of their reasons.

David Heath: I sense that the Minister is coming to a conclusion

Tony McNulty: No.

David Heath: I beg the hon Gentlemen's pardon.
	The Minister has not responded to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) about training. Does he expect custody officers in each police force to be trained in the new code, or will someone held under the code be transferred to a police force with appropriate facilities and custody officers?

Tony McNulty: I suspect and hope it will be the latter. If, not because of the Bill but because of other activity, we need the equivalent of Paddington Green-type stations everywhere, that would imply a huge increase in activity among those likely to be charged under the code. Separate expert facilities, such as those at Paddington Green, will, at least at first, be the way to go. In the broader context of police restructuringI am not seeking to provoke anyone by mentioning level 2, closing the gap and counter-terrorism provisionall that is being looked at, away and aside from the whole restructuring debate. That may result in there being equivalents of Paddington Green elsewhere. If, as I suspect, every force eventually needs the equivalent of a Paddington Green, I am sure that training will be forthcoming.

Douglas Hogg: Building on the point made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and adopting the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), where the detained person is held in a prison rather than in a police station, questions of appointing and training prison officers to serve as custody officers might arise. Clearly, if a detained person is to be held for an extended period, many of the considerations that could arise in a police station will arise in the prison. I hope that the Minister will consider that and the implications for the Prison Service and training.

Tony McNulty: I have already said to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield that that is a fair point and that I will look at it. In the main, however, in terms of individuals detained, the norm would be, as with the 14-day period, that they be returned to the safe and secure police facility for interviewing. I take the point about evidentiary trails and the role of custody officers in police stations being rather different from their equivalents in prisons. That is worthy of exploration, and I will get back to the House through a response to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield.
	Without wishing unnecessarily to prolong matters or to go off on another insulting and inarticulate

Nick Herbert: Will the Minister give way?

Tony McNulty: Of course, once I have breathed and finished my sentence.

Nick Herbert: Oh, go on, then.

Tony McNulty: I had reached my peroration, but I shall, of course, give way.

Nick Herbert: I am very grateful. I hope that the Minister will forgive my interruption; I had thought him on the cusp of winding up. I shall not be provoked by his comments on police amalgamation, but given his generous recognition that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) suggested that the revised codes should be put in place, does he also concede that the Prime Minister's contention that the reason why the Government were unable to introduce the 28-day provision quickly was that we, the official Opposition, insisted on a longer consultation period for the code is simply not the case?

Tony McNulty: I, too, will not be provoked. Let me get back to my failed attempt at a peroration which, as I attempted not to insult anyone else and to exhort everyone else to be narrow, slipped into my broadening the base of the debate myself.
	There are, as I have said, points of wider political debate around the order, and those may well be points for another time and another place. On the substance of the code of practice and the changed code for non-terrorist suspects, there is broad consensus in the House. Having smelled that consensus, I shall sit down before I provoke its breakdown.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That the draft Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Code of Practice C and Code of Practice H) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

Orders of the Day

Electoral Administration Bill

[Relevant documents: The First Joint Report from the Constitutional Affairs and ODPM: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committees, Session 2004-05, HC 243, on Electoral Registration, the Government's response thereto, Cm 6647, and Oral and Written Evidence taken by the Constitutional Affairs Committee, Session 2005-06, on Electoral Administration, HC 640-i and 640-ii, and on Party Funding, HC 1060-i.]
	 Lords amendment considered.
	Before Clause 13
	 Lords amendment: No. 8B

Bridget Prentice: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
	The Government's approach throughout the passage of this Bill has been to seek consensus wherever possible. Indeed, in several areas we have achieved it. For example, in response to issues raised in this House and in another place, we have made amendments to the co-ordinated online record of electors, to the new duties on electoral registration officers, to the position of service voters with the support of my colleagues at the Ministry of Defence, and to anonymous registration and other things.
	We have even achieved consensus on measures to address postal voting security. The Bill was introduced with provisions for the piloting of personal identifiers. Those clauses have been replaced by a national system of postal voting identifiers.
	Provided that the Bill receives Royal Assent soon, to which I will return later, these tough new security measures will be in place by the elections in 2007. The only remaining area on which we disagree is that of individual registration.
	We have set out our reasons for opposing individual registration, at this point, on a number of occasions, and I believe that right hon. and hon. Members are by now fully aware of them. Today, therefore, I shall focus instead on addressing Members' concerns about the measures we are taking outside individual registration. In previous debates, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), who speaks for the official Opposition on this matter, has expressed his view that individual registration will address two issues: the security of electoral registers and potential fraud in polling stations.
	On the first point, we should not ignore the significant changes that the Bill already puts in place to make electoral registers more secure. Under the Bill, electoral registration officers will be able to remove ineligible people from the register right up to five days before polling day and, for the first time, people will be able to make public objections to entries on the register that they believe to be inaccurate or fraudulent. An ERO will consider every objection, and can call for evidence and remove people who prove to be wrongly registered. That opportunity, too, will be available up to five days before the close of poll.

Simon Hughes: This is an important issue. Will the Minister tell the House whether an objection could be seen through to its conclusion, in time for the election? Thus if somebody objected five days before an election and if the objection were sustained, after checking by the relevant authorities, would that name come off the register five days later, on polling day?

Bridget Prentice: I see no reason why that should not be the case. If the ERO receives the information in time, reviews the evidence and believes the person to be falsely on the register, they will have the power to remove the person at that stage. If the process could be delayed, I will let the hon. Gentleman know, but that is my understanding of the purpose of that part of the Bill.

Robert Syms: We all know that sometimes contests are tight and that there can occasionally be grudge contests, such as the recent one in the east end of London. Must the ERO always investigate an allegation? One could envisage hundreds of challenges being made at the last minute because people realised that it might make a material difference to the outcome on polling day.

Bridget Prentice: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes and the mischief that could be created if that were to happen. But there is the five-day period, so people would not be able to try to disrupt things in that way on polling day. The ERO can take complaints up to five days before polling day. If there were a large number of complaints, he or she would take advice about how to respondfor example, if there was a particular issue in an individual ward.
	We are also strengthening the law on the provision of false registration information. Clause 14 will make it an offence to provide false information to a registration officer at any time. In addition, we are making it an offence to provide false information in connection with an application for a postal or proxy vote. At present, the maximum penalty for the existing offence of providing false information is 1,000. The maximum penalty for the new offences under clause 14 will be 5,000, together with up to 51 weeks imprisonment. I am sure the House will agree that that should act as a significant deterrent.

Angus MacNeil: Will the Government take responsibility for a comprehensive canvass, given Dr. Michael Pinto-Duschinsky's evidence to the Committee on Standards in Public Life that there were 7 million errors on the register for England and Wales alone? He stated that there were 3.5 million names that should not have been on the register and that 3.5 million people might not have registered at all. Will the Government ensure that that is corrected?

Bridget Prentice: I am aware of that academic's evidence to the Committee. The EROs with whom I have held discussions do not accept the detail of his evidence, although we are aware from a variety of sources that there are people who should be on the register but are not. Of course, if people are on the register who should not be there, they should be removed. We want a clean and secure register and the provisions in the Bill give the EROs more powers to ensure that that happens. I will look into the evidence in detail when it is publicly available.

Oliver Heald: The Minister knows that I asked to see the responses to the Government's consultation paper, Electoral Administration. A Policy Paper for Discussion, last October. They were placed in the Library on Monday, eight months later. Why did it take so long?

Bridget Prentice: I am not entirely sure of the relevance of that question to this part of my remarks. It takes some time to analyse properly the responses to consultation and to give them due weight. I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman might make a more positive response by accepting that we have made the information available for everyone to see.

Oliver Heald: The Minister published a summary of the responses in October, but I wanted to see the actual responses. I cannot understand why it took eight months, from October to June, to produce the real documents.

Bridget Prentice: As I said, the documents are now available. It can take time to give due weight and to analyse in detail the meaning of such responses and what people are trying to get across to Government. I accept that eight months is a long time and we would have preferred the period not to be that long. There is, however, another aspect over which we have no control: we have to get permission from people to publish their documentation, which can take a long time. I am reminded of discussions with administrators about canvass returns; when we are canvassing people we sometimes need two or three attempts before we get a response. That is probably the biggest reason why it took longer than we wanted to publish those details.
	I turn to the issue of fraud in polling stations. I accept that there have been allegations in Coventry recently, and they are being investigated and dealt with in the proper way. However, we must ensure that our response is proportionate. As the Electoral Commission said in previous briefings on the Bill:
	There is currently little evidence of personation in polling stations, and equally, little perception of risk attaching to voting in polling stations among voters.
	In addition, the Bill includes a measure to tighten the rules about polling stations, by providing that in future people must sign for their ballot paper. That provision will mean that there is a better audit trail and it should also provide additional confidence in the system.
	Signing in polling stations was piloted in three local authorities at the recent elections, including in my authority. Initial indications are that voters broadly welcomed the new measure, and we are aware of no allegations of fraud. The Electoral Commission will evaluate the pilots and we look forward to receiving its report.
	The Bill includes a number of important changes to the way registration and elections will be run and we are confident that it will meet our objectives. However, as I have said before, the Department will keep the impact of the legislation under review and we will share the results of our evaluation with the House.
	I want to say a little about implementation, and about the timing pressures being created by this parliamentary ping-pong.

Greg Knight: Will the Minister give the House a little more information about the review? Does she envisage it taking place a year hence, or perhaps two or three years hence? What time scale needs to elapse before a worthwhile review could be undertaken?

Bridget Prentice: The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I think that we should allow for a variety of elections to take place so that we can have a fairly comprehensive view of the reaction to all the measures. I would not like to put a specific time on that, but I would like examples from a number of elections so that we can make a proper evaluation of the effect of the Bill.
	I shall return to my remarks on timing. We hope to implement the postal vote identifier at the next elections in 2007. That includes elections in England and Wales, and indeed in Scotland. About 12 to 15 per cent. of people now vote by post, so we are talking about a major administrative challenge and it will take some time and a great deal of effort to get it right. We want to give the administrators and the electoral returning officers the best possible opportunity to get it right and therefore we are working to a strict deadline.
	If Parliament is serious about addressing postal voting issues by the next elections, the Bill needs to be passed soon, without any further delays. Neither the personal identifier scheme, nor the Bill's other important measuressuch as the increased powers to secure a complete register and all the amendments on loans to political parties, which achieve transparency in party funding and which the whole House wants to see in order to regain the confidence of the electoratewill be in place until, at the very earliest, the elections in 2008 if the Bill is not passed by this House and in the other place in the very near future.

Simon Hughes: If the Bill were to be passed in the near futureI share the Minister's wish that it isbut with the Lords amendment included, can the Minister confirm that that would not delay the implementation and that we could still use it for next year's elections?

Bridget Prentice: I am not sure that I can give that confirmation. As I mentioned in reference to the postal vote identifier, which will cover 12 to 15 per cent. of the electorate, the work that has to be done by the EROs and the administrators in order to get things up and going is quite enormous as it is. I am not confident that they feel that they would be able to do that in time for the 2007 elections if there was a blanket personal identifier measure. That is why I ask the House to oppose the Lords amendment. We have an excellent Bill and everyone has added to it in some way. It would be a great tragedy for those important measures to be lost on the basis of a single point.

Oliver Heald: I congratulate Baroness Hanham on her success in prevailing again in the other place. The background to our first debate in October was the widespread electoral fraud in Birmingham, which had led a judge to say that the systematic fraud there
	would disgrace a banana republic.

Bridget Prentice: I am usually reluctant to intervene on the hon. Gentleman in his opening remarks, but that is the second time in this debate that he has used the banana republic example. That was the 2004 election and, after that, we put in place a number of measures to secure the system. Birmingham responded to that excellently. He ought to stop using old evidence relating to a system that no longer exists.

Oliver Heald: The hon. Lady is right to say that there have been some improvements and there are some improvements in the Bill, but the overwhelming voice of opinionfrom people other than her and a few of her colleaguesis against what she is saying and in favour of individual voter registration and personal identifiers. It is extremely worrying and sad that the Government will not accept that. Even she has to admit that it is alleged that people who were in Pakistan voted in the local elections in Coventry. That is an obvious allegation of impersonation. It really is not good enough for her to say complacently, Oh well, we've solved the problem when the fact of the matter is that the allegations continue. As I said last time we debated the issue, there are eight election petitions currently ongoing. The Electoral Commission argued in its document Voting for Change that it was necessary to have individual voter registration and individual identifiers such as signatures and dates of birth. Its adviceit is an independent body, set up by the Government for that purposewas pretty clear.
	In November, I asked the Minister whether she would let me see the actual responses the Government's consultation, Electoral Administration: A Policy Paper For Discussion. The responses were placed in the Library this Monday and they make interesting reading. The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) said that he felt
	particularly strongly that registration should be verified by personal signature.
	The London borough of Mertonat that time Laboursaid that the introduction of individual identifiers
	has to be supported by anyone wishing to ensure that the security and confidence in the electoral system is maintained and enhanced.
	The metropolitan borough of BuryLaboursaid:
	The introduction of individual registration, with the provision for electors to supply a signature and a date of birth would be fundamental in reducing electoral fraud.
	The borough of Telford and WrekinLaboursaid:
	We support the use of signatures and dates of birth as individual identifiers.
	Adam Gray, a former Labour councillor and the Labour party's election agent in the London borough of Wandsworth said:
	In respect of identifiers I strongly favour one rule for all electors so if postal voters are required to have an identifier, there is no reason why polling station voters should not be required to have one as well. While you
	that is, the Government
	say that there is no evidence to suggest that personation at polling stations is a significant problem, it is of course the case that the overwhelming majority of electoral fraud instances have pertained to personation at polling stations, NOT postal vote personation.

Angus MacNeil: What about the possible situation of merchant seamen in my constituency, who might be away for voyages of five months and then find themselves coming home just before an election? How would the proposal for signatures affect those kinds of people?

Oliver Heald: The people whom the hon. Gentleman represents would register to vote in October, I imagine, as others do. At the moment, they do not have to provide a signature at that point; in future, they would. When they voted, they would also have to provide a signature, because that is what the Bill says in the schedule. I do not think that there is any problem. Most people can sign their name.

Bob Spink: Does my hon. Friend accept that, in any case, in such circumstances an electoral registration officer could take a view on that and dispense with the requirement? That is part of the amendment.

Oliver Heald: Yes. I was not sure whether the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil) was suggesting that some of his constituents cannot sign their names, because clearly there would need to be provision for that, which is what we have suggested.
	I will continue with the long list. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith)Laboursupported individual voter registration with identifiers. The hon. Member for Harlow (Bill Rammell)a Ministersaid:
	I would support the use of individual identifiers such as signatures and dates of birth.
	Redcar and Cleveland council gave its support, saying:
	individual registration would provide a more accurate canvass.
	The Minister's colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), will have to explain herself to her council. The council where Labour was accused by the judge of systemic electoral fraud was Birmingham, which the Minister has already mentioned. The council's evidence supports collecting individual identifiers and calls that a useful safeguard. The respected commentator Peter Riddell in  The Times has described the Minister's arguments as false. He says:
	There need not be a choice between fighting fraud and maximizing registration and turnout. They are parallel, not conflicting, issues.
	He described our case as overwhelmingand rightly so.
	I could continue, but instead perhaps I should say to the Minister that all the political parties support the case that I am makingyes, even the Labour party. I will quote from the official Labour party response to the Department for Constitutional Affairs policy paper. The head of the constitutional and legal unit said, on behalf of his party:
	We agree with the collection of individual identifiers when people register to vote as a welcome improvement in enhancing the security of the electoral process.
	So, it is not just Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe observers, the Electoral Commission, the Electoral Reform Society, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, the other parties, Cross Benchers and the other place who agree, but even the Labour party.

Angus MacNeil: Just for the record, we are with the Government on the amendment.

Oliver Heald: Is not that marvellous? One Member from another party supports the Minister. She must be proudshe can stand tall.
	The Labour party is serially incompetent. Its treasurer did not know about the main source of funds for the election, and the Minister is contradicting her party's stated policy. It is time that the Government stopped looking ridiculous and made the concession. Such measures have worked where they have been tried and are an obvious protection. The measures in the amendment are supported by every Opposition Member who has examined themwith one exception. It is time that the Minister learned the lesson from the other place and abandoned her foolish motion.

Simon Hughes: This debate comes round again. Some of us are serving on a Joint Committee of both Houses that is examining the conventions of the House of Lords. Whatever we discover they are, or are not, one thing that incidentally comes into our discussions is a consideration of rules that might be more sensible than those that we have at the moment. An idea that is clearly up for discussion and has a lot of support is the suggestion that once a Bill has moved up and down the corridor between the Commons and the Lords a few times, there might be wisdom in establishing a Joint Committee of both Houses so that the people who know what they are talking about can sit down and try to reach an agreement. However, we cannot yet do that, so we are involved in the annual, occasionalit is not terribly frequentand important process of finding out whether we can reach a compromise after hearing what both Houses have said.
	There has been no great delay so far. The Bill was introduced into Parliament in November 2005. It came out of the Lords only on 7 June. We considered it on 13 June, it went back to the Lords for consideration on 20 June, and it is back with us today. Only two weeks have passed since this House first had the chance to consider the great volume of work done by the Lords, to which we pay tribute. As the Minister indicated, nearly all of it was consensual. All of us are clear that we are considering a significantly good Bill that will allow us to make a lot of good progress, yet we are left with one remaining disputed issue.
	When the time comes, which will be no more than an hour from when we started by virtue of the guillotine, my colleagues and I will vote to uphold the decision that the House of Lords took the other day. We will do so for several reasons. As you know from your constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker, and as we all do from ours, we have to get the balance right on maximising turnout and minimising fraud, both of which we want to do. I have checked the Library note to find out the turnout at the last general election. For reasons about which we could be mischievous, although I will not, the Northern Irish always have the best turnout. West Tyrone won, with over 80 per cent. of those who were registered votingthey must be congratulated. Indeed, the four constituencies in the UK with the highest turnout were all in Northern Ireland. The constituency on the mainland of the United Kingdom with the highest turnout was West Dorset, at 76 per cent.
	However, sadly, there was a different situation in the constituencies at the bottom end of the league table. The turnout in Liverpool, Riverside was 41 per cent. The figure in Manchester, Central was 43 per cent. and it was 43.3 per cent. in Salford. The turnout in Glasgow, Central was 44 per cent., as it was in Liverpool, Walton. Two Hull seatsKingston upon Hull, West and Hessle, and Kingston upon Hull, Eastboth had a turnout of 45 per cent. The figure in Glasgow, North-East was 45.9 per cent, as it was in Manchester, Gorton, and the turnout in Leeds, Central was 46.2 per cent. I cite those figures entirely objectively without commenting on the Members for those constituencies or their parties, but people can obviously check what sort of seats they are. Those figures are not good. According to the Library note, the turnout in the recent local elections in England was 37 per cent., but there were huge variations. In my borough, turnout ranged from 25 per cent. to over 50 per cent. Since our debates began, we have also had the Power report to examine the way in which we can deal with both maximising turnout and minimising fraud.
	Two bits of objective advice have been given to us, the first of which was from the Electoral Commission, which is the statutory body that has been set up to advise us. The Electoral Commission is in favour of personal identifiers for not only postal votes, but votes cast in person. If a body that we set up is meant to have authority, it seems to me that we should take it seriously and presume that its proposal is the right one, unless there is a good argument against that.
	Secondly, we have advice from the relevant Select Committee. Electoral Registration, the first joint report of Session 2004-05 of the Constitutional Affairs Committee, which is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committee, said:
	We agree with the Electoral Commission that it would not be necessary to include provision of a National Insurance number as a requirement of registration in Great Britain.
	It also said:
	We believe that the inclusion of a signature in the list of required identifiers is the correct approach.
	The history of our debate shows that the Conservative party started by saying that national insurance numbers should be used, which we opposed. The joint Select Committee suggested that there should be a system that was halfway between what we have now and that more extreme proposalhaving a signature.

Oliver Heald: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that I still think that national insurance numbers would be an extremely useful safeguard. It is only because I have not been able to garner sufficient support from other parties that that proposal is not still before us at this stage. That is why I am compromising.

Simon Hughes: Of course. I was not trying to misrepresent the position of the hon. Gentleman or his party. However, we are in a period of compromise. I observe in passing that that idea might have been slightly discredited by the revelation that emerged recently, although some of us knew about it a long time ago, that a person does not need a legal status in this country to get a national insurance number. That somewhat weakened the argument for a national insurance number being adopted as one of the things that a person must prove.
	The Lords amendment says that there should be two personal identifiers: the signature and date of birth. The joint Select Committee talked about onethe signature. Although we can debate the matter today only on the basis of those two identifiers, my constructive suggestion to the Minister is that we could reach an acceptable compromise in this Bill for this yearbefore we break for the summer recess, thus providing the time for the Bill to become law and take effect before next year's important elections in Scotland, Wales and Englandby agreeing to have the signature alone as the identifier this time. My colleagues in the Lords will talk with Conservatives and Cross Benchers, as well as Labour Members and Ministers, and I hope that we may be able to use that suggestion as the basis for an agreement. However, such a measure is not an option for us today because we have to have a final go to determine the position of this House.
	We are not doing this for no purpose. I know of the sensitivities among Government Back BenchersI have heard them. Some of the Minister's colleagues are troubled. I would be troubled if I thought that the measure would put off from voting people whom we particularly want to encourage. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has been assiduous in trying to make the point, on our behalf, that it is a pretty unpleasant argument to suggest that the people who at the moment are not votingthe young, the elderly, those in areas of economic deprivation and those from our black and minority communitiesare not doing so because they cannot write their signature or, if date of birth were included, because they cannot remember and fill in their date of birth. That is a patronising view. There are many reasons for young people not voting, but I have not yet heard anyone saying that it is because they cannot sign or will not sign. Indeed, I have seen research to the contrary. I have seen no evidence that an inability to sign is a reason for not voting in any of the other categories that are under-represented in the turnout.

Oliver Heald: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman about the patronising nature of those comments, but he would agree, I am sure, that the amendment that the other place has been sensible enough to send us makes provision for the electoral officer to dispense with requirements if somebody is disabled or has a problem.

Simon Hughes: Absolutely, and indeed there are a few people who cannot write, and who normally put a cross or make a mark. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out.
	We can have a more robust system, and we ought to do so. That would allow some cross-checking if there were suspicions about people registering. The Northern Ireland experience does not suggest that we will suddenly lose unjustifiable numbers of people from the register. What we will lose are the names of people who appear twice, those who stay on the register when they should not, those who remain on the register after they die and, as the hon. Gentleman reminded us, the occasional Mickey Mouse names, which people put down for a joke to see whether they will get into the system. There may be a temporary dip, but if the other good things in the Bill happen, hopefully the number still start to rise again and we will end up with increased registration. That is what we all want, and I and others have made specific suggestions to the Minister about how we can achieve it.
	I end with a compliment to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). He has been assiduous in pressing for submissions to be placed in the Library, and they have now arrived. The coup in his researchresearch may be overstating the case; he made investigationsis that he was ahead of me in discovering that Labour Members have made submissions entirely contradictory to that of the Government. That is not unusual, but it is a helpful addition to the panoply of arguments. I hope that after we have debated the matter, and the Liberal Democrats have voted with others to sustain the Lords amendment and keep identification for voting in person, we can get a sensible outcome in the House of Lords so that we have to deal with the matter only once more, it can go on its way and we will have a better system in place ready for next year.

Robert Syms: We have made a good deal of progress, and over the last few months there have been many things that those of us who care about these issues have been able to support. We are to have a much more secure system. The Government's support for individual registration for postal votes is a good move; some of our greatest concern about recent cases has been to do with postal votes. It is just a pity that the Government will not take one more step and support individual registration for those who vote in person.
	There are concerns out there. There are many blocks of flats and houses in multiple occupation where piles of cards go through the door and sometimes disappear. We all have examples of people who have turned up to the polling station to find that they are not registered, and they get angry. But people get really angry when they are registered, but find when they go to vote that somehow somebody has voted for them. In my years of politics I have known that happen, not very often but on the odd occasion, and if we can do something about it, we ought to.
	I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) about national insurance numbers. About 2 million or 3 million have been issued on a multiple basis. This is one of the least secure means of personal identification. I understand that we do not have an ideal identification method at the moment, but a system using signature and date of birth is sensible and will be easy to operate. Most electoral registration officers whom I run into are capable people, and I am sure that it is not beyond their wit to introduce that system for 2007.
	If there were a problem and the Government were concerned, it would not be the end of the world if they agreed to the amendment and delayed the measure a little until they could introduce the system. They have already said that they are keeping the situation under review. We have heard from the evidence already given that there is widespread support throughout the political parties, and the question is when. Why not now? If the Government were to agree to the amendment, it would be a good thing because it would show them joining in the general consensus across the partiesexcept for the Scottish National party.

Greg Knight: My hon. Friend has touched on the view of the SNP. Is it not worth saying to the Member who represents the Western Isles that as the Lords amendment relates to England and Wales as well as Scotland, he should perhaps abstain?

Robert Syms: I do not intend to go down that particular track, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Angus MacNeil: As the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, I say to the House that if the amendment affected only England and Wales I would, of course, abstain, as that is the SNP's policy.

Robert Syms: Excellent.
	The Lords have considered the issue and given us an opportunity: they have given the Government an opportunity to think again. We should stick with the measure, because we all know that it is the right thing to do. Why not do it now rather than putting it off for a few more years, by which time there will be other examples of fraud which will annoy voters?

Bob Spink: I welcome the Bill; it contains some worthy measures. I congratulate the Minister on the way in which she has taken it through the House, and particularly on accepting a number of changes.
	I fail to understand the Government's rationale in resisting the amendment on personal identifiers for individual registration. It is perfectly normal for official or civic forms to require a signature; that is part of the normal requirements of modern life. The Government's own electoral advice body, the Electoral Commission, gave clear advice that a signature and date of birth are essential, so I cannot understand the Government's position. It would be extraordinary not to require a signature or markit defies common sense.
	It is extraordinary that the Government feel that requiring a simple signature and date of birth as personal identifiers will be in some way obstructive, even though they plan to roll out the first identity cards, with three forms of biometrics, in 2008 and to make that work using a massive IT infrastructure.
	My key point is that the absence of a requirement for a signature or mark and date of birth would invite further public distrust of the electoral system, and that would be a very serious matter. I urge the Minister to continue with the good progress that she has made in accepting decent changes to the Bill by accepting this decent change.

Andrew Love: I apologise to the House for the fact that I was unable to be here at the beginning of the debate; unfortunately, I was caught in a meeting, but that in no way diminishes my belief in the importance of this debate and the issue that we are deciding on this afternoon.
	It is worth emphasising continually that everyone in the House accepts that, in principle and in a perfect world, it would be better to move to individual registration. I suspect that it would be better if we could have all sorts of other identifiers to ensure that everyone who voted in an election was the person who was meant to be voting. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world, so we must balance contending pressures. On the one hand, we must ensure that electoral fraud does not take place, but on the other hand, we must facilitate the registration of the maximum number of people so that they can take part in elections. That is the essence of our debate.
	May I say at the outset that I am concerned about fraud and the cases that have been heard in court? However, at every election, whether for local, regional or national GovernmentI am sure that all hon. Members have had the same experiencemany people come to my headquarters to say, I've just discovered that I'm not on the register, and I can't take part in the election. We have made it easier in the past few years for people to register almost up to election day, but if I counted up all the people in that position, they would vastly outnumber the total cases of fraud brought to court. I do not wish to minimise legitimate concerns about fraud, but we must look at the overall context, because we would be concerned if people could not exercise their democratic right to vote in elections.

Angus MacNeil: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is probably a strong argument for requiring the Government to undertake a canvass of the electorate to ensure that it is as comprehensive as possible on polling day?

Andrew Love: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, and I shall come to the question of an annual canvass. I shall draw on my own experience in my local authorityit is probably reflected in other parts of the countryas I have concerns that I wish to share with the House.
	An enormous number of potential electors simply cannot exercise their democratic right because they are not registered when elections take place. I shall not go into the figures in detail, but everyone who has participated in our debates will know that about 4 million people are missing from registers nationwide, and that on average 8 per cent. of voters are missing from each electoral register. Of course, there are some registers from which few people are missing, but that is not the case in my Greater London borough. Some 20 per cent. of people are missing from registers in many parts of London, and it appears that we cannot do anything to improve the position and increase the number of people who register. That is the backdrop to Labour Members' concern that any further hurdles facing people who wish to register will only make the situation much more difficult.

David Taylor: I am not sure of the provenance of the figure of 4 million for unregistered voters, but does my hon. Friend not accept that the main reason for the lack of votes in ballot boxes is the fact that people who are on the register formally abstain from voting? Some 40 per cent. of the national electorate16 million or 17 million potential votersdo not vote. Is it not even more important to address people's alienation from the political process, as it is a great cause for concern? I support individual registration and the annual canvass, but we must tackle alienation more effectively, because it is at the heart of the problem.

Andrew Love: That is a big topic, and you would call me to order, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I went off at a tangent to discuss that interesting and critical subject. I will resist the temptation to do so, although I acknowledge the importance of my hon. Friend's contribution.
	Every time we debate this issue, the subject of electoral registration in Northern Ireland comes up. The figures show that there was a significant drop in registration following the introduction of additional identifiers in Northern Ireland, but it was partially reversed when a comprehensive canvass of electors was carried out. That suggests that the identifiers had a negative impact on registration in Northern Ireland, which, I emphasise, has a settled community. In a community with significant churnfor example, Londonthose difficulties are intensified. We can therefore say with some confidence that additional identifiers will dramatically reduce the number of people on the electoral register in cities such as London, as well as all major urban areas throughout the country.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman knows that I sympathise with the aim of ensuring that more people are put on the register, and I believe that there are different ways of achieving that. Does he accept that the evidence from Northern Ireland suggests that the names that were removed were largely those of people who should not have been on the register, or who had died? Consequently, was not the drop in registration a positive, not a negative?

Andrew Love: I accept that there were individuals in those categories who were taken off the register. However, I emphasise the point that after the numbers declined following the introduction of the identifiers, they began to grow once the comprehensive canvass took place, so, rather than the case described by the hon. Gentleman, a significant number of people must have been removed from the register because the identifiers presented a hurdle. It is that problem that concerns people more than anything else.

David Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his generosity in giving way. Is he aware of any academic research that compares the names that disappeared when individual registration was introduced with the names that reappeared? If there is a considerable correlation, there is substance to the theory that individual registration deters some people from submitting their names. Has any such research been done? It would be fairly easy to conduct, as the register is computerised.

Andrew Love: Research may well have been carried out, but I am more interested in the practical realities of the situation in Northern Ireland. A graph showing the number of people who are registeredthis is the reality, as opposed to limited academic researchdemonstrates that the numbers grew significantly when a comprehensive canvass was carried out, which suggests that many people had been omitted from the register. That is the reality.
	I wish to move on, as other Members wish to contribute to our debate. I am concerned about the registration process and, more importantly, about whether we can return to the halcyon days when electoral registration was a relatively foolproof method of putting people on the register. First, there is a funding problem. The Bill will provide significant additional funds, but many Members have asked for reassurance that the money will be spent on the electoral process. I accept the point made by the Minister, but it is 10 years since my local authority increased the amount of funding for electoral registration, thus causing a significant deterioration in the quality of registration. It has had a direct impact, too, on the pay of canvassers.
	I have been told by several canvassers about the hostility they experience on the doorstep from people who do not want to be bothered by someone asking them to sign up to the electoral register, the importance of which they may or may not fully understand. The consequence is that many canvassers no longer carry out the job, because they are not paid enough to put up with the hostility. Indeed, there is a direct relationship between places where canvassers are put off and areas of low registration. Areas with 98 or 99 per cent. registration have canvassers, and it is in areas with 70 per cent. registration that canvassers cannot be found. When canvassers cannot be found, letters are sent out, but if a canvasser has failed in one or two visitsthe number of visits is consequent on the level of fundingit is very unlikely that a letter will trigger registration. We must increase funding, ensure safety and provide support to enable the canvassing process to be carried out properly.

Oliver Heald: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil) has left, because we have been unfair to the Scottish National party, which said in its response to the Department for Constitutional Affairs that it supports the individual registration of voters in order to decrease the chance of fraud. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is not the impression that we have been given?

Andrew Love: That is certainly not the impression that I have been given. I support the thrust of the remarks by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil) about the need for a comprehensive registration process. Although part of my argument is that we need to bolster the electoral registration process, I would not want hon. Members to think that I believe that we can get back to some halcyon day, and that that process by itself will lead to mass registration. It certainly will not lead to mass registration in my area of London, and I doubt whether it will in other areas up and down the country.
	We must look more closely at registration. Although I do not normally cite Australia as the perfect exampleit has compulsory registration and compulsory voting, which would not be appropriate at this point in the United Kingdomthe fact that more than 98 per cent. of people there are registered to vote is instructive.

Michael Wills: Will my hon. Friend state the circumstances in which compulsory registration would be appropriate?

Andrew Love: It is already a requirement that people should return an electoral registration form. Interestingly, the law does not state that they are required to fill it in, or to provide accurate information, although the registration form asks for accurate information. If we were to move towards compulsion in this country in relation to elections, it should involve registration in the first instance, and if that were to work, we could perhaps consider compulsory voting.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman, so that he does not stray too far, that we are looking at the Lords amendment and personal identification.

Andrew Love: I take the point, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for drifting off into that important subject, because I recognise that time is limited, and we need to stick to the issue.

Oliver Heald: Is not the problem in this country, as opposed to what happens in Australia, that most experts think that about 3.5 million people are not registered who should be, and a similar number of people are registered who should not be? It would be impossible to introduce a system like the Australian system without cleaning up the registers, but how does the hon. Gentleman propose to do that?

Andrew Love: I am not sure whether I accept that so many people are on the register who should not be, although there is undoubtedly significant double counting. The issue involves not only putting people on the register, but ensuring that the register accurately reflects the people who have the right to vote in a particular election. Nevertheless, I take the point, which is important.
	In a modern context, registration should involve more than someone knocking on the door. The registration process should involve tapping into all the available information, because we do not make use of the available information from utilities and the postal service. Local authorities have enormous amounts of information, such as council tax records, that could be useful in ensuring that the register is accurate.
	We do not need to concentrate on registering everyone. Many people return the form annually, which gives no difficulty in the compilation of an accurate register. However, research shows that groups such as young people, people who live in council accommodation, the unemployed and people from black and ethnic minority groups are vastly underrepresented, and we should focus our resources on them. At the end of the day, the objective is to ensure that everyone can cast their democratic vote, which is surely what we are all about. If we can clean up the register in the process and make it more accurate, that would be welcome.
	I welcome the Government's rejection of the Lords amendment and hope that this House will support them.

Bridget Prentice: I reiterate that I hope that the House will oppose the Lords in the said amendment.
	 It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings, Madam Deputy Speaker  put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [13 June].

Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:
	 The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 204.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Lords amendment disagreed to.
	Committee appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment No. 8B to the Bill: Mr. Michael Foster, Mr. Oliver Heald, Simon Hughes, Martin Linton and Bridget Prentice; Bridget Prentice to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee. [Mr. Michael Foster.]
	 To withdraw immediately.
	 Reasons for disagreeing to the Lords amendment reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

National Lotteries Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6)(programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the National Lottery Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 14th June and 11th October 2005:
	 Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement at this day's sitting.
	2. The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order, namely: 1, 2, 6, 7 and 3 to 5.
	 Subsequent stages
	3. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any further question being put.
	4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.  [Mr. Roy.]
	 Question agreed to.

National Lotteries Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 7
	  
	National Lottery Distribution Fund: Apportionment

Lords amendment: No. 1.

Richard Caborn: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 2 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, Lords amendment No. 6, Lords amendment No. 7 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, and amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 7.

Richard Caborn: The Bill has taken a little time to reach this point, but as today's debate will show, it has come a long way. My Bill manager, Valerie Curtiswhom the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has met on a number of occasionshas now gone off on her honeymoon, which was booked for after the Bill was expected to receive Royal Assent. She is now swanning around South America, and I am sure that the whole Houseparticularly the hon. Member for Bathwill send her best wishes.
	The Lords amendments deal with the relationship between Government and the Big Lottery Fund, and the need for all lottery distributors to report annually on the way in which they have interpreted the principle of additionality. Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 seek to remove the Secretary of State's power to prescribe expenditure in relation to the new Big Lottery Fund good cause.
	We have discussed this very fully on several occasions, both here and in another place. For reasons that we have already explained at length, we believe that the powers set out in clause 7 are necessary and serve an important purpose, given the exceptionally wide scope and large size of the good cause that the Big Lottery Fund covers. Without the power to prescribe expenditure, the Big Lottery Fund would be given 50 per cent. of all the lottery good cause money to spend on anything that is charitable or connected with health, education or the environment without any further recourse to Parliament. We do not believe that that makes sense.
	The large new spending area of health, education and the environment that the Government created in 1998 has proved popular and successful. The new Big Lottery Fund good cause brings those areas together with the area of charitable expenditure distributed by the Community Fund, allowing an enormous range of projects to be encompassed. That is a good thing, and one of the main reasons why we wanted to bring the Community Fund and the New Opportunities Fund together. However, it does create a very different kind of good cause from the existing arts, sport and heritage good causes. Arts, sport and heritage are much narrower areas, and the existing legislation narrows things further by prescribing sums to be distributed by different distributors. That has the effect not only of limiting the definition of who can spend the money, but of restricting what it can be spent on. Parliament took the view in 1993 that such arrangements were necessary to ensure the effective distribution of Lottery money. The powers that we propose in the Bill will have a similar effect, and we believe that they are necessary now as they were in 1993.

John Redwood: Does the Minister recall the view of the then Labour Opposition during the passage of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993? They were adamant that lottery money should not be spent on such matters as health, because they thought that it would be a substitute for money that ought to be found from taxpayers' resources. Why have they performed such an abrupt volte face?

Richard Caborn: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, time moves on. The Government do consult from time to time. We have had one of the widest consultations on the lottery and how it should be distributed, and I think that that is absolutely right. Since the lottery was introduced, we have put it on record many times that it is a great institution. Credit must go to Conservative Members: at least they set up the lottery. That is one of the few good things that they did. We have continued to consult, and it is very evident that the direction that we are now moving in is in concert with what the British people think. If the right hon. Gentleman's party did the same with its policies on the lottery as we have done, it might have a chance of winning the next election.
	We need to be able to set outat the very highest levelthe types of expenditure that the Big Lottery Fund should focus on. We are talking about broad areas of expenditure, not projects or programmes, the split between the four parts of the good causes, or the split between the four countries of the UK, and certainly not specific grants. It is absolutely right that that should be done in a transparent and accountable way, and that there should be proper parliamentary scrutiny. That is why we are very clear that it should be done through secondary legislation and be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
	We have made available an illustrative order demonstrating how the power to prescribe expenditure will be used in practice. The ability to prescribe devolved expenditure is also central to achieving the greater devolution of decision making to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which is the Bill's aim. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 would mean that the Bill's devolution arrangements would not work: they would retain power for the Secretary of State where the Government wish to devolve it. For the reasons that I have given, we cannot accept those amendments.
	I hope that the House will agree with the Lords in respect of Government amendment No. 6. We previously debated additionality at some length, and it is clear that all parts of this House support the principle of additionality. Yet decisions on what to fund remain decisions for lottery distributors to make, and I am sure that all Members would agree with that. So, as we have continually made clear, it is not appropriate for us to try to include in the Bill a definition of additionality.
	I think that there is now general agreement on this position, not least in another place. There is also general agreement that it is right that lottery distributors should report annually on the way in which they have interpreted the principles, as I agreed with them and reported to this House. But the Government accept that there is strong feeling that a requirement for such reporting should be included in the Bill. It is very important to get the wording right, and we believe that this amendment provides the appropriate form of wordsone that distributors can meet, and that will allow proper transparency. We must remember that this is a reporting requirement; it is not a definition, and it does not attempt to set out what lottery distributors can or cannot fund. If Parliament should have reason to take issue with distributors' reports, there will be an opportunity to debate that in any section of the House.
	As we have pointed out, the fact that lottery funding is additional to Government funding does not mean that it cannot be complementary to such funding. We have also pointed out that agreement on what is appropriate for Government to fund can change over time, as I have just said. Just because something is, or is not, currently funded, does not mean that that will always be the case. For example, some things that the lottery has in the past funded are now funded by central Government, and will probably not be funded by the lottery in future. Moreover, there might be a desire or need now for something that the Government might possibly fund in future. Such cases have certainly arisen in the arts and heritage, where the lottery has provided funding.

Mark Field: On health expenditure, to which the Minister referred, ifperhaps for financial reasonsthe National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence decides not to fund a particular treatment, will that not be a green light for the lottery to fund such expenditure in that very way? Our concern about additionality, particularly in relation to health, is that precisely such abuse of the lottery, which occurred in the past through the New Opportunities Fund, will occur in future through the Big Lottery Fund. Our worry is that at some future point, the Big Lottery Fund will look to adapt funding for health, education, the environment and perhaps other areas: that it will be taken out of general Government expenditure, and that, in effect, it will be at the mercy of the lottery. Does the Minister not understand that that is precisely our concern, and that the grey area of complementary or other funding cannot begin to deal with it? Will he give us some

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is enough for an intervention.

Richard Caborn: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to make a speech, and that I would have to intervene on him.
	We genuinely take on board the picture that the hon. Gentleman is portraying, and we are trying to do two things. First, we are trying to ensure that the arm's-length nature of the distribution of funds is in place. Secondly, we are now asking each of the distributors to include in their annual reports what they believe was their expenditure and the additionality element. That will enable Members to bring distributors to book in many wayson the Floor of the House, in Committee, or through interrogation by Select Committees. We are trying to address the additionality issue, which is sometimes very difficult to address. I do not think that hon. Members really want a position whereby the funder would start to be challenged in court. If we got into the legal minefield of providing a definition of additionality that becomes challengeable, we might see a long line of people queuing up at court to argue against it. In trying to respond to the genuine concerns that Members here and in another place have brought before us, we have gone a long way towards making transparent the way in which additionality is dealt with by funders.
	As the annual reports unfold in the years to come, we will see how the information is used by Members. I hope that it will be used objectively. If Members are concerned that an area that is being funded is not additional, those who have done the funding can be questioned about it. The amendment will enshrine in the Bill the requirement for lottery distributors to report annually on how they have interpreted additionality in their funding decisions in order to ensure transparency while allowing them the proper freedom and flexibility in their funding decisions. I urge hon. Members to support it.
	On amendment No. 7 and amendment (a), I beg to move that this House

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. On a procedural point, I should say to the right hon. Gentleman that I will call upon him to move the other motions in the group at the appropriate time.

Richard Caborn: Thank you for that guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	On amendment (a), we recognise that perceived Government control over the Big Lottery Fund is a fundamental point of concern to Opposition Members, as it was to their counterparts in another place. We still believe that those fears are unfounded, but we acknowledge that they are genuinely felt, and we are therefore prepared to amend the Bill to address them.
	Amendment No. 7 would provide that the Big Lottery Fund must take into account rather than comply with any policy or financial direction given to it by the Secretary of State. We cannot agree to the amendment, as it would put the Big Lottery Fund on a different footing from all the other lottery distributors, who are required to comply with financial directions. However, our amendment (a) delivers the spirit of amendment No. 7. It provides that the Big Lottery Fund must comply with policy directions only as to the matters to be taken into account. It replicates the wording in section 26(1) of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, which sets out the Secretary of State's powers to give policy directions to the other lottery distributors. That puts the Big Lottery Fund in exactly the same position as the other lottery distributors, including the Community Fund. I hope that Opposition Members will recognise that we have listened carefully to what has been said here and in another place and have been prepared to make changes where we believe that they are necessary.

Mark Field: There is no disputing the fact that proceedings on the Bill have been a long haul. As the Minister pointed out, it received its First Reading in this House as long ago as 25 November 2004. What a difference 19 months makes! After one election, two Conservative party leaders and three Home Secretaries, we have finally reached the finishing tape.
	Let me say at the outset that significant progress has been made, and it would be churlish of us to oppose the Government today. Nevertheless, we remain concerned, despite the sterling work done in another place, that the underlying principles behind the Government's thinking will prove detrimental to the fundamental principles of the national lottery. We intend to remain vigilant to ensure that worries about vastly increased Government control over the distribution of lottery funds are kept at bay. I will say more about that when we come to the next group of amendments.
	In our view, the national lottery was set up by a Conservative Government more than a decade ago with the specific purpose of improving the daily quality of life for all people in Britain by reserving funds for activities that might otherwise be neglected in the everyday distribution of taxation receipts. By contrast, the creation of the Big Lottery Fundthe centrepiece of the Billrepresents a step, if perhaps a small one, away from the exclusive focus on the four original good causes: arts, heritage, sports and charity.
	I am, however, happy to recognise that the Government have taken on board many of the specific concerns that we expressed in what the Minister has diplomatically described as lively discussions on Report and Third Reading on 19 January. I also welcome the Government's acceptance of the two important matters of principle in another place. We are pleased that the lottery distributors have now agreed that they will report back annually on how they are adhering to the additionality principle.
	On Third Reading in the Lords, the noble Lord Davies, on behalf of the Government, tabled a specific amendment to establish the agreement of the distributors to enshrine in the Bill the duties of those distributors. We entirely agree with the Government that decisions on what to fund should remain strictly for lottery distributors, but we still believe that it would have been helpful had a stricter definition of additionality been placed in the Bill. However, we recognise that a detailed report on the upholding of the distinction between lottery funding and Government funding represents a workable solution and one that we will obviously look at in the years ahead.
	We recognise that the noble Lord has given us an assurance that if Parliament has reason to take issue with reports from distributors, there will be opportunities to debate that. Similarly, we appreciate the fact that lottery funding being additional to Government funding does not mean that it should necessarily be complementary to such Government expenditure.
	May I at this point place on the record my thanks to my colleagues in another place, Viscount Astor, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville and Lord Luke, for all their sterling efforts?
	The other main issue on which we crossed swords with the Government was the control of the Big Lottery Fund. As the Minister will recall, the Government were narrowly defeated in the Lords on Report when we sought to remove the Secretary of State's powers to prescribe by affirmative resolution types of expenditure for the Big Lottery Fund. While taking at face value the assurance from the Government that those powers are needed only to establish a broad theme rather than specific spending intentions, we recognise that the new amendment tabled here today effectively accepts the spirit of that amendment from the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats in another place.
	In that context, I thank the Minister for his assurances that his amendment tabled to clause 14 puts the Big Lottery Fund in the same position as other lottery distributors with regard to policy directions, but in doing so, we recognise that the Big Lottery Fund will need to take account of, rather than simply comply with, financial directions in the same way as other lottery distributors.
	We also recognise that, on Third Reading in the Lords, there were several new and uncontentious amendments tabled by the Government to which we will come later, when I shall also say a few words about the ongoing independence of the Big Lottery Fund. It is important that there be independence from Government interventionor, indeed, any political interventionin relation to the distribution of lottery funds. It is a great worry that we are moving down a path that will become more apparent as we debate the new lottery operator. It is all the more important that, effectively, we have three very independent organisations, with Parliament overseeing the lottery operator and the distribution of lottery funds. An intermingling of responsibilities would be dangerous, and this is something that we will debate in the months and years ahead.
	With those comments and with my thanks for the Minister's words, I hope that we can move ahead on the Government's proposals today.

Don Foster: I, too, am delighted that we are coming to the end of this rather long process; the passage of the National Lottery Bill through both Houses. Like the Minister, I congratulate the Bill team on their stamina and I pass on my congratulations to the leader of that team on her marriage. I hope very much that she is having an enjoyable honeymoon.
	As the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) pointed out, the Bill started its passage back on 24 November 2004. It was interrupted because of the general election and Second Reading took place on the Floor of the House on 14 June last year. During that debate, I was able to acknowledge the fantastic work done in each and every one of our communities as a result of the distribution of money raised by the lottery. I also expressed my view that the Liberal Democrats had got it wrong when, at the time of the setting up of the national lottery under the Conservative Government, we opposed it. I still think that we were wrong to have done so, as the lottery has done sterling work.
	During the Bill's passage since 14 June last year, I believe that significant improvements have been made, as others have already said. The briefing from the National Council for Voluntary Organisations states:
	We believe that the Bill has been significantly improved as a result of the amendments and debates around upholding the additionality principle, maintaining the independence of lottery distributors and ensuring that the National Lottery provides sustainable funding streams to the voluntary and community sector.
	I agree with much of that, but I also agree with the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster that, in respect of additionality, that is rather over-egging the pudding. I continue to be concerned that we have not achieved as much as we would like in respect of enshrining a definition of additionality in the Billthe Prime Minister said that that would be a good ideain order to provide a benchmark against which to judge the decisions of the various lottery distributors.
	The Minister is right to be concerned, as he hinted he was, about aspects of health spending. He said that it would not be right for lottery money to be spent on aspects of health that were being funded by the Government, but as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster pointed out, under that definition, whatever aspects of health the Government choose to spend money on at any one time will be sacrosanct and the lottery can come in and fill the gap.
	It is interesting to read what it says on the Department of Health's website. Under the heading, Why can't Lottery money be spent on the National Health Service?an interesting questionthe website states:
	The Government does not believe it would be right to use Lottery money to substitute for NHS services that are paid for through taxation. It is committed to the principle that Lottery funds should be used to support only initiatives that are additional to health services provided through Government expenditure.
	But it then continues:
	Lottery money for projects which support preventative health care and health promotion is available, through the Big Lottery Fund.
	However, those are aspects on which NHS money is currently spent, so there is already confusion on the matter.
	Although the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster seems to be smiling at me and nodding in agreement with everything I say, we should perhaps remember that the Conservative party has not been absolutely straight on this issue. It is worth reflecting that, before the last general election, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron)now the Conservative party leaderannounced on the Today programme his plans for a national school leaver programme. The presenter asked him how it would be funded and he replied, on 4 January last year:
	Well we want to look at that, there is the National Lottery, there are all sorts of programmes we can access.
	He was clearly interested in getting his mitts on lottery money, as confirmed in the Conservative manifesto, which announced that the party's Club2School sports scheme was to be funded by 750 million of lottery money. The Conservative party has not been quite as clean on this issue as it might have been.
	The key issue relates to the Big Lottery Fund, which is a combination of the Community Fund and the New Opportunities Fund. My party was opposed to the establishment of the New Opportunities Fund because it was going to distribute on a basis entirely determined by the Government, thus totally eroding the principle of additionality. As I have said, the New Opportunities Fund is to form part of the Big Lottery Fund and we therefore continue to have concerns about its running. We all know that the Big Lottery Fund has existed for more than a yearindeed, I have a Big Lottery Fund T-shirt and mugyet we continue to debate the measure that is meant to establish it. However, it already exists and we must accept that.
	It was crucial to ensure that the Big Lottery Fund is subject to no greater opportunities for Government interference than any other lottery distributors. Under the original Government proposals, that would not have been the case. The Big Lottery Fund would have had to comply with a string of directions from the Secretary of State. Both Opposition parties wanted to ensure that it had to comply only to the same extent as other lottery distributors.
	I am therefore delighted that, after pressure in the House and in another place, the Government have acceded to our request. The amendments would ensure that the Secretary of State had the same ability to instruct the Big Lottery Fund and the other lottery distributors. It is therefore right that the wording of the amendments mirrors that of section 26(1) of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. We are delighted to support the amendments because they would effect what we wanted to achieve from the outset.

John Redwood: My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) was characteristically generous and kind to the Minister. I understand the background. Many colleagues have been involved in long and extensive debates here and in another place, and I am pleased that the Government have made some movement in the amendments in the direction that we wish them to follow. Given the spirit of consensus that appears to pervade parts of the Chamber this afternoon, it would be churlish to deny that. I therefore welcome the fact that some of the language of the National Lottery etc, Act 1993, is repeated in the amendment in lieu to take account of some of our worries.
	However, not all our worries are tackled. Once again, we are in a position that we occupy all too often with the Governmentthat of considering sketchy and general measures when the things that matter will emerge in orders and subsequent prescriptions on expenditure, which are not laid before the House or included in the statute. It is therefore a pity that the Minister has not been forthcoming about what the Government have in mind by way of proper guidance to guarantee that any health and education expenditure can be genuinely additional. More importantly, how can it be guaranteed that such spending will not crowd out the other expenditure in the 50 per cent. category that has a proper claim on the lottery as originally defined?
	I well remember the debates about the 1993 legislation. The then Government were attentive, as they should have been, to the Opposition's views. The then Opposition were determined that none of the money should find its way into core elements of public spending, such as health and education, because they believed that that constituted a cop-out by the Government of the day, that the contributions would be small compared with the large sums of money spent through main programmes and that the lottery should be steered away from any such proposal. I am sure that the Opposition welcomed the fact that the Government went along with thatalthough they were not too generous about the matterand ensured that the right guarantees were built into lottery legislation so that the lottery could concentrate on the arts, heritage, sport and charity and not get involved in small amounts of funding, relative to the large amount of state funding that went directly to health and education.
	That is the nub of the argument this afternoonwhat is the problem with including health and education? There are two main problems. First, state spending on health and education is already massive, so the lottery contribution would be small in comparison. There might be a temptation to increase the lottery contribution more and more to try to increase its significance when compared with the large amounts that come directly from taxpayers' money.
	Secondly, health and education are dominated by monopoly state provision involving large sums of money. It has been common party policy between the Conservatives and Labour in the past 20 years to make health and education the two utmost priorities for increases in spending. Although Labour has spent much of the past few years trying to deny that, anybody who looks at the figures will see that in the 1980s and 1990s Conservative Governments regularly increased health and education spending by more than the rise in prices and often by more than the rise in wages, and wanted to make substantial real increases in that spending. When the new Government came to power they carried on with that policy and, in the past three years, we have had an even bigger leap in health and education spending, with which we have not disagreed. We are interested to see how that works out, because it has been a shared priority across the Floor of the House that health and education should be the dominant areas that attract extra money from the taxpayer.

Bob Spink: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the public perceive that lottery money is displacing money that should rightly be provided from the public purse for health and education, they will disapprove and that that will reverse the recovery that the lottery has seen in ticket sales and, therefore, its ability to help good causes generally?

John Redwood: That is a possibility, and my hon. Friend makes his case strongly. My case is slightly different. Given that it is still the shared priority of the major parties that health and education should get the lion's share of increased taxpayers' resources, and given the large sums involved, it is difficult to see how a bigger additional contribution can be made by lottery funding. It would be difficult to identify the areas that would be genuinely additional and that everybody would agree the state should not provide. The state is the monopoly provider, the provider of last resort and the general provider of health and education services to most of our constituents and, as such, it has the duty to ensure that whatever is new or worthwhile in those areas is properly paid for out of taxation.
	My concern is with the traditional areas for the lottery, which will be squeezed by these proposals. We can see that under clause 7 half of the amount will go to the new purposeshealth, education and environment, of which the first two are likely to be the dominant onesand the worry is that arts, heritage, sports and charities will be squeezed. Why were they identified as suitable areas for lottery fundingattracting cross-party agreementin 1992-93? It was because the state was not dominant in those areas. The state is not the main provider of arts, heritage, charity or sport in our country. There are huge amounts of private money in sports such as soccer, mostly from television companies, huge amounts of voluntary donations to charities, and arts and heritage attract a great deal of private money from rich companies and rich individuals and the many of our constituents who visit them and pay fees for the privilege of doing so. The amounts provided by the state to those areas were not huge and the state did not dominate funding, so it was possible to identify smaller community projects or larger tasks that needed additional money, to which the lottery could make a real difference. We all have examples of the lottery's success in achieving just that.
	The worry is that if we allow Ministers to get away with providing money from the lottery to health and education without proper rules on additionality, there will be backsliding, so that matters that we agree should properly be paid for in the normal way by the taxpayer take money and detract from the amount available for the other good causes for which the lottery has become famous and which it should fund in the future.
	I face a conundrum when asked to approve the amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster says that they are the best that we can do and I am often swayed by him, but it would give me and many others for whom I speak greater comfort if the Minister could give us a better insight into the sort of prescriptions that the Secretary of State will produce if she is entrusted with these powers. It would be helpful if we had before us a clear definition of additionality that made sense and could provide a way to police the operation of these clauses.
	The Minister may think that the Big Lottery Fund has the common touch, although people might consider the name to be a tad vulgar for something so well intentioned. It is certainly ambitious and presumptuous, but I hope that people realise that they need to keep on buying tickets if it is to stay big.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) said, many people will want reassurance that the lottery will not become a cheap trick for a Government who have run out of money. They have spent a very great deal on the core purposes of health and education without achieving all that they wanted. The proper purposes of the lottery were defined on a cross-party basis when it started, but those purposes may be put under pressure and begin to wither. We must not get into the sort of vicious circle that my hon. Friend described, with people's lack of enthusiasm causing contributions to fall.
	Moreover, I should be reluctant to get into a pincer movement, with health and education taking more and more, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster implied could happen. All too often, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence makes judgments about remedies that doctors and patients in my area think could be valuable, and then says that they will not be available on the NHS. If the lottery were to begin making up for NICE's meanness, it could be very expensive. It might be popular, but it would not be in the spirit of additionality, and the Government have given no reassurance on the matter.
	At the risk of damaging the wonderful spirit of consensus evident in the debate, I urge the Government to think more clearly about additionality, and to offer more reassurance in that regard. The Bill is another example of Henry VIII legislation, and a lot remains to happen after it has gone through the House.

Mark Fisher: I am grateful to be able to say a few words in this debate, and to follow the interesting remarks made by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). I share some of his concerns about the general drift of matters to do with the national lottery. There is an acceptance in the House that the Government are moving in the right direction with the lottery, certainly compared with their original plans. However, many people outside the House are very worried about funding for the arts and heritage, which over the decades have tended to be underfunded by Governments of all parties.
	The lottery was originally intended to bolster the funding for heritage and the arts, and very good work was done in the early days, specifically in connection with the acquisition of objects and works of art for museums and galleries. There was a time when the Department responsible for the artsit used to be the Department of National Heritage but is now the Department for Culture, Media and Sportearmarked money for our national galleries so that they could acquire objects and works of art. That has been frozen or even eliminated in some cases, so that now even the British Museum and the National Gallery have almost no money at all.
	We are approaching the Olympics, when the eyes of the world will be on us. I hope that Ministers will take pride in the fact that this country has some of the greatest museums, galleries and arts organisations in the world, and that they will use the opportunity to talk up, praise and value our extraordinary cultural riches and heritage. However, that approach is slightly undermined by the fact that the Government have almost ceased to help our museums and galleries to make acquisitions. The two organisations that were preventing museums and galleries from being simply unable to acquire new objects and works of art were the National Heritage Memorial Fund and the Heritage Lottery Fund.
	I fear that a terrible drift has taken place in recent years, and that it is embodied in the Bill and in the attitude of the DCMS. Guidance has been given to the Heritage Lottery Fund that it should turn its attention away from the arts and heritage in general, and away from acquisitions in particular, and towards the Olympics, sport and socially desirable programmes. Nobody disputes that those things are valuable and desirable. Everybody wants the Olympics to be a success, but the idea that they can be a success only at the expense of our cultural life and of our major museums and galleries being able to make acquisitions is very regrettable. The Bill does not, in itself, further that trend, but it does nothing to balk a trend that is extremely undesirable. Anyone who has paid any attention to these matters will have heard the articulate pleas of Mr. Neil MacGregor, the director of the British Museum, and Mr. Charles Saumarez Smith, the director of the National Gallery, that important acquisitions that they ought to be making on our behalf cannot be made.

John Redwood: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case and I have a lot of sympathy with what he saying about the arts and heritage. There is a problem with the Bill. We all accept that the Olympics are an important one-off event and that a case can be made for more money going into sport in the run-up to them, to give sport a better chance and so that we can all be proud of our athletes as well as our facilities. However, it is a one-off event and it will end. The problem with introducing health and education is that they could prove to be a permanent addition, and they may grow and grow because their appetites are so large. They could be far worse at squeezing what the hon. Gentleman values than sport, in its temporary phase of ascendancy, will be.

Mark Fisher: I absolutely agree. This whole area of concern puts the finger on something that has always bedevilled politicians and Governments in their support for the arts and for heritage. The public are asked the perfectly understandable rhetorical populist question of whether they would prefer to help people who are dying and have huge help problems, or to help our young get a good education, or to buy works of art for a gallery, works of archaeology or objects. Almost everybody, of courseno matter how passionate a supporter of the arts and our cultural heritagewould ask how one could possibly resist supporting people in severe ill health or who need better education. But it is not a proper questionit is a fake question, and one that should not be asked.
	In any civilised society, we need both: of course we need good health care and education, but we need great art galleries to express what this generation cares about and to pass that on to our children and grandchildren. The danger of the Billand to the lottery, which has been, in our lifetime, the one bulwark against that populist questionis that undermining that bulwark by general drift will leave us all poorer. The lottery may, as a result of the Bill and the Government's action, do very good work in health and social inclusion programmes, and in the Olympics and sport. However, our children and our grandchildren will ask what it was that this generation cared about in our cultural life and how they can see it when they go to our major galleries and museums. They will ask what we collected and what we wanted to do, and there will be a terrible, gaping hole.
	Virtually no contemporary fine art is being collected in this country. One of the few bodies that supports itthe Contemporary Art Societyhas minuscule programmes and a tiny handful of money every year. In 50 years' time, we shall be in danger of their looking back at our generation and saying that we cared so little for our arts and heritage and cultural life that nothing remains that there is a gaping hole in our museums and galleries. [ Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) want to intervene?

Jonathan R Shaw: No.

Mark Fisher: Interestingly, I thought that someone on the Treasury Bench wanted to intervene. I would willingly have given way if the hon. Gentleman had wanted to contribute to the debate.

Mark Field: I fear that an intervention from the Opposition Front Bench will be second best, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me instead. He is making a powerful contribution. We, too, have expressed the concern that the more we have to justify expenditure on the arts and heritage in relation to extraneous elements such as education, law and order and the like, the more dangerous the path. As he rightly points out, in times of difficult financial straits for the countrywhether or not they actually come to passif we have to justify expenditure on the arts and heritage in relation to money and goods for health and education there will be something of a disaster. Inevitably, money will go to health and education, not to the all-important artistic heritage that he rightly promotes and praises.

Mark Fisher: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As he says, the Opposition Front Bench is second best and I would have preferred to take an intervention from the Treasury Bench, but his observations were interesting and helpful.
	I am simply making a plea to my right hon. Friend the Minister. He is a civilised man who comes from an extremely civilised city, which, ironically, embodies the best of the trend and its dangers. Sheffield has some of the finest regional galleries and museumsWeston Park and the Graves have wonderful collectionswhich have benefited hugely from lottery money and are the better for it. There is a fine director, Mr. Nicholas Dodd. However, the danger is that there will be no acquisition money. A small amount is available through the renaissance fundindeed, Sheffield is a hub for thatbut the money has to be disbursed around the region.
	The galleries and museums of Sheffield, the Minister's own city, will be in fine physical condition, but we shall not be refreshing and renewing their collections. I hope that my right hon. Friend shares my concern that such a wonderful city could be left in that position. Will he make sure that he does not increase pressure on the Heritage Lottery Fund by encouraging it to move too far away from help for the arts or heritage, especially for acquisitions for our museums and galleries? We need that help, and if the Bill is to do the good work that it should it must not move away from it.

Hugo Swire: The hon. Gentleman's comments are music to the ears of many of us on the Opposition Benches. He is aware of Sir Nicholas Goodison's report and its recommendations, although sadly few of them have been implemented by the Government. Does he share my concern that if the Government move towards an acquisition fund they should not raid existing funds or divert money from the Heritage Lottery Fund or the National Heritage Memorial Fund, but should find new sources of funding, if they can, to solve the acute acquisitions problem?

Mark Fisher: That would be the ideal solution; there should not be raids on other areas. I am going slightly wide of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I hope that the Minister heard what the hon. Gentleman said about Sir Nicholas Goodison's report. The whole world outside this place has been waiting for a positive response to at least some of its very practical recommendations. That is one wayother than the lotteryin which we can help those causes that does not involve general taxpayers' money. I hope that the Treasury, through the Minister, will hear those points and will recognise that tax forgone works extremely well in the acceptance in lieu scheme, whereby about 30 million goes to our galleries and museums every year. A general approach, such as Sir Nicholas Goodison recommended, would be an ideal addition to money through the lottery, which we are considering today. I hope that I am still in order when making that point, linking

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not push his luck.

Mark Fisher: I hope that I was pushing my luck with great gentleness, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that I was teetering on the borderlines of being in order, because there is a relationship between tax forgone and the concerns that are directly being debated today about heritage. Those things need to be considered together. One of the ways in which we could strengthen the Bill would be through tax forgone. I trust that the Chancellorparticularly if he has wider ambitions in the futurewill realise the good and sensible ways in which he can assist without putting a further strain on the taxpayer.
	To return to the heart of today's considerations, I hope that the Minister has taken on board some of the concerns from both sides. Although I welcome the general drift and direction that the Government are taking with the Bill, I hope that we are not going to fall into the trap of ignoring the needs of the culture of this country and that we will not sell future generations short.

Richard Caborn: That was a tour de force of special pleading. There was some slight straying from the amendments [ Interruption. ] I will answer the questions. The hon. Members for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) and for Bath (Mr. Foster) have been involved in the passage of the Bill over many months and I welcome what they have said. We have responded to and rightly addressed some of the concerns that have been expressed here and in another place, and the amendments before the House reflect that. I do not say this disrespectfully, but some hon. Members who were not on the Committee may not quite appreciate how we have evolved the Bill. It was against the background of a wide consultation that we came to bring in the Big Lottery Fund and to give a clear indication to heritage, the arts and sport regarding their proportions and a clear ongoing commitment in relation to licensing and the proportions thereon.
	I should tell my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher) that, interestingly, there was strong support for heritage in that consultation. That is reflected in what we have said in the Bill about the arts, heritage, sport and the Big Lottery Fund. However, I am also bound to say that there was a tremendous amount of support for education and health. Sometimes we get those in a narrow band.
	One of the areas in which the lottery has been hugely successful relates to sport, education and health. We have 3,000 or so school sports co-ordinators who are operating effectively in the 400 or so school sports partnerships. They were funded by the lottery, but because they became so important to that project and the development of the two hours of quality physical activity and sport for every child every week from the age of five to 16, that aspect has been taken away from the lottery and put into mainstream spendinginto Exchequer expenditure. Sometimes we can experiment and put pilot schemes in place to develop ideas and concepts, and the lottery can be a useful financial mechanism to do that. Eventually, the projects can transfer to mainstream spending.
	It was clear from the consultations that people thought that it was useful to use lottery moneywe are talking about people who play the lotteryfor health and education and to have part of the funding from the lottery. That would be additional. I repeat that through the annual reports that will be presented to Parliament, the lottery distributors will have to show how they believe that that additionality has been used. Indeed, if it is the desire of hon. Members, that can be scrutinised. The measures in the Bill on additionality respond to many concerns that Members of both Houses have expressed.
	It would be wrong to say that the Olympics will be a distraction. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central is an expert on the history of art and heritage. Gold, silver and bronze medals were awarded in the ancient Olympics for works of art and culture. As we come up to 2012, I hope that we will see in this country the important cultural aspect of the Olympics that makes them successful. With the London organising committee for the Olympic games and other bodies, such as the nations and regions committee, the Government intend to ensure that the Olympics are not London-centric and that we use the vehicle of the Olympics to bring art and culture, as well as sport, to all parts of the kingdom. It is pleasing that the trust that we are setting up with lottery money from not only the Millennium Commission and the Big Lottery Fund, but the arts lottery, is seen as a good way of using the platform of the Olympic games to get out to the British people. Money is being used in many and varied ways, so there are dangers in trying to departmentalise through legislation, as hon. Members sometimes try to push Ministers to do. The Olympics will be used for not only sport, but art and heritage as we move towards 2012.
	I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has read the draft statutory instrument that we have published alongside the Bill. Hon. Members said that they wanted to read such a document, so we have produced a draft order on national lottery prescribed expenditure. I will not read it out, but I hope that it gives the House a guide to the measures that we would expect to be in such affirmative statutory instruments. I think that right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but the draft is a good guide to what we are trying to do. We are trying to be as transparent and open as possible. I hope that the House will support the motion.
	 Lords amendment disagreed to.
	 Lords amendment No. 2 disagreed to.
	 Lords amendment No. 6 agreed to.
	 Lords amendment No. 7 disagreed to.
	 Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 7 agreed to.

Clause 8
	  
	Reallocation of funds

Lords amendment: No. 3.

Richard Caborn: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may consider Lords amendments Nos. 4 and 5.

Richard Caborn: The Government's amendments concern the proposed reserve power to reallocate an excessive national lottery distribution fund balance from a lottery distributing body to another body. The proposed new power has been the subject of extensive debate at all stages of the Bill both in this House and in another place.
	Ministers have given repeated assurances that the Government would seek to use the proposed new power only as a last resort against a distributor that had failed over an extended period to tackle an excessive NLDF balance and had refused to take steps to manage that balance down to a reasonable level. Those assurances were not accepted by some Members, particularly those in another place, which is disappointing to me as it feels like an attack on my integrity, and I am deeply hurt. To get into such a dismal position a distributor would need to have ignored not just the Government's guidance, but, as I have said on a number of occasions, the recommendations of the National Audit Office and the very powerful Public Accounts Committee.
	I emphasise again that at the moment I am very pleased with the progress that distributors have made to get lottery money out of the bank to where people need it to do good. As things stand there is no question of our exercising the reallocation power in relation to any of the distributors.
	The Heritage Lottery Fund has often been mentioned in our debates. I want to pay tribute to the trustees of the Heritage Lottery Fund and their chair, Liz Forgan, for their wisdom in choosing the best projects to support. They have balanced care in the selection process with a higher rate of spend, and they have reduced the balance from a high point of over 1 billion in early 2003 to just under the target of 800 million by the end of the 2005-06 financial year. In the two months to the end of May the balance came down by a further 4 per cent. to around 764 million. That is a significant achievement by the HLF, and I understand that it plans a further significant reduction in the balance over the next three years or so. That is genuinely to be welcomed.
	No distributor that manages its balance down in a sensible way has anything to fear from the proposed reallocation power. I should also remind hon. Members that the power is framed so that it cannot be used to transfer lottery proceeds away from any one good cause, whether it is the arts, sport, heritage or causes supported by the Big Lottery Fund. It can be used only to transfer a balance from one body to another within the same good cause.
	In the reallocation power as framed in the Bill as it left this House, the Secretary of State would not have been able to exercise the power without first consulting the body from which the NLDF balance, or part of it, was to be transferred, and the body to which it was proposed to reallocate that money. The Secretary of State would also have been obliged to consult the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Neither of these requirements has changed. Nor was there anything in the Bill as it left this House to prevent the Secretary of State from consulting more widely if she so wished. The Government fully recognise that there would be legitimate wider interest in any proposed use of the new reallocation power.
	Any use of the new power would be subject to affirmative resolution. There would be no question of the Government being able, somehow, to exercise the power in secret or without giving people time to make representations. However, there was no provision specifically enabling the Secretary of State to consult more widely. The desirability of clarifying that point was pressed on the Government at various stages of the Bill's passage in another place, and, indeed, in Committee in this place. In response, the Government agreed to table appropriate amendments to require the Secretary of State to consult more widely before she can exercise the reserve power to reallocate balances. I trust that hon. Members will agree to amendments Nos. 3 and 4.
	On amendment No. 5, I think that there is now general agreement about the benefits of wider promotion by lottery distributors of the benefits of the lottery good causes funding. Our research tells us that people are much more supportive of the lottery and its benefits when they know how the money has been spent and why. But concerns have been expressed both in this House, notably by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), and in another place about the original drafting of new section 25E(c) of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, inserted by clause 11, which refers to
	encouraging participation in activities relating to the National Lottery in general.
	There was concern that that could give lottery distributors the power to encourage people to play the lottery, but we have repeatedly pointed out that there was no such intention on the Government's part. We included that provision because we wanted to make it clear that lottery distributors have the power to encourage participation in activities related to the promotion of the lottery good causes funding, such as national lottery day and the national lottery awards. Those activities are more successful in conveying the way in which lottery money has been used if more people become involved. That is different from merely publishing information about the way in which the good causes money is spent, although it is still related entirely to the good causes funding. Hence the amendment, which makes it clear that the encouragement activity is restricted to
	distribution of money under this Act.
	That money, of course, is good causes funding. With that explanation, I trust that hon. Members will support the Lords amendments.

Mark Field: As the Minister pointed out, Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 4 require the Secretary of State to consult other persons as she thinks appropriate in the extreme circumstance that she decides to exercise the balance relocation power in clause 8, which is a common-sense safeguard. Similarly, the Government proposal in Lords amendment No. 5 to make it clear that the powers in clause 11 cannot be used by lottery distributors simply to promote their own lottery games makes sense, especially if there is to be more effective competition in the lottery in the next decade. We welcome those minor amendments, and we will not press them to a vote this afternoon.
	As we are debating national lottery issues, I wish to put two of the Opposition's longer-term concerns on the record. Like the Secretary of State, I am a London Member of Parliament. Our capital city has every reason to be proud of securing the Olympic games for 2012, but I agree with a number of concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher). Serious questions remain about the means of funding the Olympic games. Given the track record of all recent Olympiads, with the exception of the two held in the United StatesLos Angeles in 1984 and Atlanta 12 years laterthere is a significant likelihood of a substantial cost overrun. One need only look at the experience of the hapless council tax payers of Montreal who, 30 years on, are still paying the price of their Olympic games, to understand that risk. Even the much admired Sydney Olympics six years ago cost almost three times as much as the initial budget. As the Minister will be aware, the current arrangements place the burden of any cost entirely in the hands of London council tax payers. Realistically, for political as well as economic reasons, that is unlikely to come to pass. There is little doubt that a cost overrun will partly be met by the national lottery

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have an uneasy feeling that the hon. Gentleman is moving on to a quasi-fourth reading speech, and I cannot allow that on this group of amendments.

Mark Field: You are right to upbraid me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It may even be a fifth reading speech, given the length of my contribution. As I have just used the words, national lottery, you can be assured that I shall address one or two issues to do with the lottery.
	While welcoming the capping of liabilities for many central London constituents, I am deeply concerned that countless millions of pounds of lottery money earmarked for arts, heritage, charities and general sporting expenditure may be transferred to an avaricious London Olympic monster. The Opposition are concerned about plans for the hypothecation

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been generous in allowing the hon. Gentleman to express one concern, but we must maintain the general rules on keeping the debate in order. The hon. Gentleman would be out of order if he proceeded to make more general comments than this group of amendments will stand. I therefore suggest that he wind up his remarks quickly.

Mark Field: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your comments. I understand what you are saying, but I simply wanted to say that there is a strange paradox. We have discussed the tick-box culture and the hypothecation of the national lottery, so it is important that the Government accept the Lords amendments and the independence of the operation of the Big Lottery Fund. Distributors should be free from political interference, otherwise I fear that many initiatives would be open to hypothecation.
	As the Minister is aware, the bidding process for the third franchise, which now involves a 10-year term rather than a seven-year term, is already under way. The decision will have been made by this time next year, with the new lottery term beginning in February 2009. I hope that in the next six months we can debate in Government time the broader national lottery issues that I have tried to touch on in this brief contribution.
	As I have said, the Opposition have no objections to this group of amendments. I suspect that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has a few more words to say, although I do not want to steal his thunder.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that there will be no thunder to be stolen.

Don Foster: I will try to ensure that there is no thunder, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall also seek to be brief.
	Depending on the decisions in another place, it seems likely that this will be the last occasion when the Bill is debated on the Floor of the House. The Minister has been robust throughout our deliberations and seemed to be fearless, so I was surprised when he became over-sensitive at the last minute because he thought that Opposition Members were impugning his integrity in connection with the Secretary of State's powers to redistribute lottery distributors' balances.
	Lest the Minister become too over-sensitive, I should explain that I wanted to ensure that the Secretary of State's powers were limited and that consultation took place before the Secretary of State made any such decision. That seemed reasonable at the time, and I am delighted that the Minister now says that it is reasonable; if that were not the case he would not have tabled amendments that do exactly the same thing as our proposal many months ago. I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has had a change of heart, and it was unnecessary for him to be over-sensitive.
	I welcome the Minister's comments about the Heritage Lottery Fund. This is the first time that we have heard praise for the work of the HLF during the passage of the Bill. I am delighted that the Minister has praised its work, and he is right to say that it also deserves praise for its work to reduce balances. However, he must know that it operates in a different environment from other lottery distributors, so it is not surprising that its balances are different from theirs.
	Finally, I thank the Minister for at long last accepting the amendment, which I initially introduced, that would restrict lottery distributors from promoting the playing of the lottery. He is right to say that it is critical that the public should know how their lottery money is being spent, which is why I welcome the work of all the distributors on the blue plaque scheme, on informing Members of Parliament about their work, and on promotional advertisements to make sure that lottery players know where their money is being spent.
	My key concern is that we should never get into a situation in which members of the public believe that if they want to give money to a good cause, the most efficient way to do so is by playing the national lottery, because playing the national lottery is, in fact, an inefficient way to give money to a good cause. If a person wants to be inefficient, they can give 1 to the national lottery, of which 28p will go to a good cause, but if they want to be efficient, they can give 1 directly to a good cause, which can use gift aid to pick up 1.28. Distributors should not therefore promote playing the national lottery. At long last, the Minister has seen the need to address that matter in the Bill. I am delighted that he has done so, and I support the amendment.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 4 and 5 agreed to.
	Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Richard Caborn, Mr. Mark Field, Mr. Don Foster, Nia Griffith and Huw Irranca-Davies to be members of the Committee; Mr. Richard Caborn to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee .[Huw Irranca-Davies.]
	 To withdraw immediately.
	 Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Childcare Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6)(programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Childcare Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 28th November 2005 (Childcare Bill (Programme)):
	 Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at this day's sitting.
	 Subsequent stages
	2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement. [Jonathan Shaw.]
	 Question agreed to.

Childcare Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 3
	  
	Licensees

Lord amendment: No. 1

Beverley Hughes: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
	This is a Government amendment made on Third Reading in the other place, which will require local authorities to have regard to information about the views of young children when carrying out their duties under clause 3 relating to early childhood services. The issue of listening to children has been raised and debated at each stage of the Bill in both Houses. We all agreed that it was an important subject. The Government have a longstanding commitment to providing more opportunities for children and young people to become involved in the planning and delivery of services that affect them. The core principles of the involvement and participation of children and young people were first set out in Learning to Listen, which we published in November 2001.
	Our commitment to listening to children and encouraging their participation has been a consistent theme throughout the implementation of the Every Child Matters programme. As I said in Committee:
	We agree that early childhood services will be effective only if they engage not only parents, but children who use them.[ Official Report, Standing Committee D, 8 December 2005; c. 83.]
	As has been made clear during debates in both Houses, we are committed to ensuring that the voices of even our youngest children, who are the subject of the Bill, are heard, and that their views are taken into account in the planning and delivery of the services dealt with under clause 3. We have listened to the arguments put forward and found many areas of agreement.
	As Members know, it was always our intention that statutory guidance should carry forward and build on the precedent already set by the current children's centre practice guidance, which sets out clearly ways to explore what young children really think. Making provision in the Bill ensures that this issue will not be ignored in the future. Fuller explanation and details, as well as examples of good practice, will be included in the statutory guidance that we issue under this clause, and that will have wider application across all childhood services, not just children's centres.
	We know how easy it is for adults to make faulty assumptions about the experiences that are important to young children. Throughout the debates, however, there has also been a wide recognition that very young children are much less likely to be able to understand and have views about the implications of strategic planning decisions: for example, how Jobcentre Plus or NHS services can most effectively be integrated into childhood services. Earlier amendments that were debated did not fully take account of the impracticality of compelling local authorities to involve young children in every aspect of the clause 3 duties. We need a proportionate approach that gives local authorities the flexibility that will enable them to perform such a duty in the way that is best suited to local circumstances and the specific issues in view at any particular moment.
	The amendment will require local authorities to have regard to information about the views of young children when it is relevant to the performance of their duties under clause 3. Those duties encompass all aspects of the design, delivery and development of early-childhood services. As a result, the voices of young children will be heard in the way in which local authorities plan and deliver services for them. It is, however, important that the wording enables local authorities to take account of local conditions and the nature of the specific issue in question at any given time and, in particular, to take full advantage of the good work done by their partners in the voluntary sector, while avoiding the practical difficulties and inappropriate aspects of participation by very young children in decision-making at a strategic level.
	I believe that the amendment strikes the right balance. It guarantees young children an appropriate voice, while avoiding the risk that local authorities will be compelled to try to engage young children in matters on which meaningful consultation with them is simply not possible. I am pleased that we arrived at a formulation allowing us to include the duty to listen to young children in the Bill in a way that is appropriate, and gives local authorities flexibility.
	I hope Members will agree that the amendment reflects the importance that Parliamentand, certainly, the Governmentascribe to this issue. I believe that it confirms our requirements and expectations of local authorities, building on the good work that the voluntary sector is already undertaking.

Maria Miller: Conservative Members welcome the Bill's return. It began its progress quite a while ago, in November 2005. We have supported it throughout, because we are in favour of many of its aims, but obviously there has been a great deal of discussion during its various stages.
	Because the Bill will give more people the chance of access to quality child care, we believe that it will help to improve children's start in life. The Lords amendments reflect the fact that some of our earlier discussions that were not heeded at the time have now been heeded by the Government, and we are pleased about that.
	I am sure that the Minister has followed the debate in the other place closely, and has noted the growing concern about how to bridge the gap between the money that nurseries receive from Government to fund free provision for three to four-year-olds and the real cost of provision that is borne by the private and voluntary sectors. If small voluntary and private nurseries lose the ability to cover the true costs of provision, they may be pushed out of business. We should consider those important issues, although they are not dealt with in the amendments before us today.
	Lords amendment No. 1 gives local authorities a duty to take reasonable steps to take account of the views of young children in the design, delivery and evaluation of services. In recent weeks we have considered three Bills relating to children in some way. The welfare of children is at the heart of all those Bills, and we feel that the amendment expresses the same sentiments. We will support it.
	We congratulate the many children's organisations on their work, particularly the National Children's Bureau. It has fought hard to persuade the Government to accept an amendment of this kind. It feels strongly that the new duty will help local authorities to deliver high-quality services to young children and families. Butthere is a but herewe need to make sure that care is taken, so that when we consult children we in no way burden them. That point was powerfully made by noble Friend Baroness Morris on Report in the other place.
	With that in mind, we need to consider how the data will be collected. Let us briefly address that. Ofsted collects the views of school-age children as a regular part of its inspection process. It uses a web-based technology, which is entirely appropriate for children of that age but would not be appropriate for under-fiveseven though under-fives perhaps have more IT literacy than some. We need to look for other methods.
	None of us would argue against the ability of some under-fives to put across their views, and if we can take them into account, it is important that we do so. Those of us with under-fives in our own households know that in some cases they can be all too vociferous in putting forward their views. However, under-fives clearly cannot have a true grasp of complex ideas such as well-being and inequality, so we would need to ensure that highly qualified personnel are used to tease such information out of that group of children, who are particularly difficult to engage.
	We also need to keep a careful eye on the usefulness of the data, which will doubtless be expensive to collect. A great deal of research has been done on the ability to collect data from that age group, and it is compelling, but we still need to look at its usefulness in terms of both policy formulation and evaluation. We support the spirit of the amendment, as it attempts to ensure that the child is at the heart of everything we do and that what we are doing is beneficial to them, but we must make sure that it provides a tangible addition to both policy formulation and evaluation.

Annette Brooke: The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I greatly welcome the amendment. We discussed at length the issue involved. It was an important issue for Liberal Democrat Members, because we think that we are moving towards listening to children and young peoplealthough the approach taken is gradual, despite the Government's having introduced some good innovative ideas and techniques in other spheres.
	The issue the amendment raises is whether the Bill should state that very young children should be listened to. I think that that is very important, because it is part of a whole cultural shift. We want our young people to participate. We want to engage with them. We want this to be a two-way process. In areas such as thisthe provision of a service for very young childrenwhy should there not be means to ascertain the views of those children?
	Excellent work has been done by a number of charities. We have talked about the National Children's Bureau scheme, Listening as a way of life, and the excellent outcomes that it produced. However, the difficulty that we had in Committee was whether young children should be put in a position where they might be expected to comment on overall strategy; that seemed to be the impediment that prevented us from getting a sensible amendment.
	I am therefore extremely pleased that the issue continues to be discussedalthough I think that my noble Friend Baroness Walmsley must have been more persuasive than me. Nevertheless, I welcome this measure, and particularly the fact that the Under-Secretary in the other place, Lord Adonis, took it very seriously and came up with wording that will take us forward. I look forward to seeing reports on, and monitoring of, some of the outcomes from this measure.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 6
	  
	Duty to secure sufficient childcare for working parents

Lords Amendment: No. 2.

Beverley Hughes: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may consider Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 9.

Beverley Hughes: This group of amendments deals specifically with the issue of services for disabled children and young people, which was discussed extensively in both Houses. Like the previous group, it was the subject of many informal discussions that took place among ministerial colleagues and other parties in order to find a way forward. We all want to provide disabled children and their families with the best possible support and advice, and to ensure that all disabled children and young people have the same opportunities as their peers to enjoy life and achieve.
	The House may recall that the duty relating to disabled children was initially set to end at age 16over and above the age applying to non-disabled childrento tie in with the statutory school leaving age, so that, for as long as disabled children are of compulsory school age, local authorities would have been required to secure sufficient child care to allow parents to make a choice about work. Sixteen is also the age at which many young people start to be treated as adults: it is the age, for example, at which, if appropriate, disability living allowance stops being paid to the parent or carer and starts being paid to the young person themselves. Other benefits, such as the independent living fund, also start being paid to young people from 16. So initially, there was a sound rationale for thinking that 16 was the appropriate age at which to end the legal duty on local authorities to secure child care.
	However, and as I have said, since the Bill was consulted on, we have listened very closely to the concerns of charities and parliamentarians representing the views of disabled children and their families, and we have had extensive discussions. We understand that many parents of 16 and 17-year-old disabled young people face real difficulties in finding suitable care that allows them to continue to work. They have told us that this is not about parents wanting additional social or health care, or even free child care; it is about ensuring that the child care market is supported by local authorities to meet the needs of those parents, and enabling them to make a real choice about work or training. As a result of those discussions, I think it appropriate to extend the duty to 18 for disabled children. We will reflect that extension to the age range in the funding arrangements for local authorities for next year, in order to support their preparations for that new duty.
	I want to explain briefly why the Government amendment does not simply substitute the age 18 for 16 in the Bill. It seems that lifeor at least legislationis never that simple. Members will doubtless be aware that clause 106 defines the age at which a young person is no longer a child. Lawyers have advised that the best way to express the policy intention for disabled young people is to amend clause 6(5) so that the child care duty, except in relation to disabled children, does not apply to children after 1 September following their 14th birthday. That may seem rather tortuous, but in practice it will mean that disabled children will continue to be included in the duty after their 14th birthday and up to the age of 18, when they are no longer children, in accordance with the definition in clause 106.
	I want to touch briefly on amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18. It was always the Government's intention to ensure, through regulations, that information on services, facilities and publications of benefit to parents of disabled children would be made available. Placing that requirement in the Bill will give greater permanence and clarity to the information needs of parents of disabled children.  [Interruption.]
	Amendment No. 16

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the right hon. Lady perhaps means amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8; Nos. 16, 17 and 18 come somewhat later.

Beverley Hughes: I beg your pardon and I thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I do indeed mean those amendments.
	As I was saying, it was always the Government's intention to ensure, through regulations, that relevant information of benefit to parents of disabled children would be made available. Amendment No. 6 will ensure that the needs of such parents are specifically included in the regulations supporting the duty to provide information. Such information will relate to child care that is suitable for disabled children and other services, as well as facilities and publications that might be of particular benefit to disabled children, young people and their parents.
	Amendment No. 7 is consequential. Amendment No. 8 defines the term disabled for the purposes of clause 12. With the agreement of the Welsh Assembly, we will table further amendments mirroring those amendments in relation to the situation in Wales.

Maria Miller: Amendments Nos. 2 and 6 raise the age for child care for disabled children to 18, albeit by a somewhat tortuous route. They reflect an amendment that was tabled in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and discussed at length. The fact that it was amendment No. 239 gives the House an idea of how much scrutiny the Bill has received.
	That amendment received support from Mencap, which shared our concern that although a 14-year-old non-disabled child would be sufficiently independent not to require child care, there is no good reason to suppose that a disabled child's need for child care will end at the age of 16. Securing it only to that age leaves a problematic gap that hon. Members will have encountered in relation to children with special needs or those who are cared for, in that all too often they seem to fall off the end of the Government's list when they reach the age of 16. In this case, we were particularly concerned that 17 and 18-year-olds might not have access to adult services and would also fall off the end of the list.
	In Committee, we discussed the fact that child care costs in the UK remain the highest in Europe. For parents of disabled children, they are often twice those of the parents of non-disabled children. As we know, half of all families with a disabled child live in poverty, or are on the margins of it, so costs are a matter of great concern.
	In Committee, the Minister reassured my hon. Friends that the Bill already met the needs of parents with disabled children and that provision for 16 and 17-year-olds was already there, although children of that age may not want to be included. I am glad that she and her colleagues have had a change of heart about that. They have listened to the arguments and understood that parents are deeply concerned about their children when they reach this age. I am glad that they have recognised the shortcomings of the Bill in this respect.
	The Bill is all about giving parents choice in child care, and the amendment helps to ensure that that choice is extended to all parents of children in this group, whose needs may be greater and last longer than those of others. I hope that it will help families who have to deal with the practical realities of caring for disabled children each and every day.
	I had hoped that the Minister would have a change of heart on several other issues that we have discussed here and in Committee, but perhaps we will have to leave those for another day.
	I confirm our support for amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9, which will help to ensure that children's information services provide information about child care for disabled children and about services, facilities and publications that may be of benefit to disabled children and their families. It is all very well our passing laws, but if we do not tell people about their implications, it is not good enough. It is particularly important to recognise the need to communicate differently to this set of parents, who may need to hear about what is available to them in different ways.
	We are pleased to support the amendment and glad that on this particular issue the Government have listened to the powerful arguments that have been made.

Annette Brooke: We welcome the amendments. Being inclusive, while highlighting that much more needs to be done in terms of child care for children with disabilities, is an important aspect of the Bill, and one that we should never underestimate. All the amendments make a contribution.
	However, I still have a great concern that there will be parents of children with disabilities who will not be at work but will still need child care. That is a huge gap in the proposals. Adding a duty to children's services to provide information, advice and assistance in terms of what services are available for children with disabilities is very important. We talked at length about various information that should have been placed in the Bill, but none of our points could have been more important than this one.
	Like the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller), I wish to ask how the information will be disseminated. That is vital. It is not clear to what lengths local authorities will be expected to go to make sure that they really reach the people they need to reach. I hope that any accompanying guidance will address what might be best practice in disseminating information, as opposed to just having a pamphlet sitting in an office somewhere.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 73
	  
	Procedure for taking certain steps

Lords amendment: No. 10

Beverley Hughes: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 11 to 19.

Beverley Hughes: This is a group of minor but important amendments that the Government proposed in the other place to deal with drafting errors in relation to this Bill, and the commencement order on the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The purpose of amendment No. 15 is to reinstate, as local authority social services functions, certain functions relating to the keeping of adoption records. The amendment corrects an unintended consequence of a commencement order for the Adoption and Children Act 2002, which in effect removed these functions from the list of social services functions in schedule 1 to the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970.
	Local authorities' functions in respect of these records remain in place, but they are no longer social services functions within the meaning of the 1970 Act. This has a knock-on effect; potentially, for example, on the powers of the Commission for Social Care Inspection to inspect local authorities' discharge of their functions under the 1983 regulations. Amendment No. 15 secures the position as it was before the commencement of the 2002 Act at the end of December 2005.
	The amendment furthermore reinstates a reference to the Adoption Act 1976 in schedule 1 to the 1970 Act so that surviving functions under the 1976 Act are social services functions. Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 make consequential amendments to clauses 109 and 110 to bring amendment No. 15 into effect from the date of Royal Assent.
	Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12 correct the drafting in clause 73 to make it absolutely clear that the provisions in clause 73(5) and 73(7) regarding the registration or de-registration of provision refer to the recipient of a notice from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector.
	Amendment No. 16 relates to the second part of schedule 2, which amends the Education Act 1996 and corrects the wording that refers to a nursery that is in England or Wales rather than in England and Wales. Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19 correct the drafting in schedule 3, which lists repeals to previous Acts and should reflect schedule 2 amendments that remove the wording from other Acts. The three repeals listed were accidentally left out of schedule 3, so the amendments simply correct the drafting.
	I hope that Members will agree that these are small but important amendments that need to be made. I recommend that the House agrees with the Lords in the said amendments.

Maria Miller: I thank the Minister for taking us through those drafting errors. She was right to point out that we have to guard against unintended consequences. Indeed, there are a number of other unintended consequences, which I outlined in my opening speech. The Government have not yet proposed amendments to clarify all those issues, but we hope that that will come shortly.
	It is important to ensure clarity in legislation. I welcome these minor and relatively technical housekeeping points, but the more important point is that we should always strive for consistency and clarity in whatever the House does. Others have to interpret what we do here and we should always bear that in mind. It may sometimes suit us, and indeed the Government, to have terms couched with some opaqueness or in ways that are not entirely clear, for fear of making a mistake or drawing a line or nailing our colours to the mast in certain instances. I would always support the Minister in her attempts to ensure that everything that we do here is clear and I hope that clarity is the watchword for all the Bills that we debate.

Annette Brooke: The amendments are technical, so I have no intention of making a long speech. At this stage, one has to rely on the expertise of those who drafted them.
	I would like to make a brief comment on amendment No. 15. It is strangely interesting that it reflects in reverse a discussion that we had in Committee. We were concerned that social services departments per se would no longer be identifiable when children's social services were subsumed within children's services. Certain duties and responsibilities should be clearly specified under the heading of social services and it must be made absolutely clear to the directors of children's services. I accept the amendment, but I am little concerned about the terminology.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 11 to 19 agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I propose to put motions 8 and 9 together.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Pensions

That the draft Pensions Appeal Tribunals (Additional Rights of Appeal) (Amendment) Regulations 2006, which were laid before this House on 5th June, be approved.
	That the draft Pensions Appeal Tribunals (Armed Forces and Reserved Forces Compensation Scheme) (Rights of Appeal) Regulations 2006, which were laid before this House on 5th June, be approved. [Jonathan Shaw.]
	 Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the intervals between stages of Bills brought in upon Ways and Means Resolutions more than one stage of the Finance (No. 2) Bill may be taken at any sitting of the House. [Jonathan Shaw.]

PETITION

Post Office (Nunney)

David Heath: I wish to present a petition that I received at the post office in Nunney in my constituency from Mrs. Caroline Toll, who is a resident of Nunney, and the postmaster and mistress, Mr. and Mrs. Innes. The petition is signed by more than 200 users of the post office who wish to express their concern about the future of small post offices such as Nunney. An attached list draws attention to what the sub-post office does for the villagenot only its activities as a post office but the other services that it provides. They include: selling newspapers, magazines and sweets, prescription delivery for local surgeries, fax transmission and reception, dry cleaning collection, providing a box office for the Nunney Players and contact for the Nunney Community Association. It is a long list of services that would be lost if the sub-post office closed. The most important point is that it provides a hand of friendship to people in the village and a sense of community.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons, the Petition of the Users of Nunney post office, Somerset declares
	That the post office is under threat of closure because some of its main income sources are being removed. Rural post offices act as community centres, as outlined by the attached list of activities in our own post office.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to act to stop the closure of any more rural post offices.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

WRITTEN PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Peter Luff: I am especially grateful for the opportunity to discuss an issue that I believe to be fundamentally important to Parliament: how we hold the Government to account for their actions, specifically through written parliamentary questions. Of course, you and I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Governments have never been keen on telling Parliament what was really going on, despite the ministerial code.
	There is a famous story about a senior Minister, lost in his car somewhere in a dense fog in the highlands of Scotland with his permanent secretary. The figure of a crofter looms out of the fog and the Minister's driver winds down the window and asks the crofter, Where are we? Why, replies the crofter, You're in a car in the highlands, lost in the fog. The permanent secretary leans across to the Minister and says with pride, That, Minister, was a perfect parliamentary answercorrect in every particular, but telling you nothing you did not know already.
	Sadly, the techniques used by Ministers to tell one nothing have become cruder in recent years. The answers that they provide are increasingly late, inadequate or simply spectacularly unhelpfuloften, I fear, deliberately so. If that trend continues, there is a genuine risk that Parliament will be even more marginalised in our society than it is already, as people who really want to know the answer to questions opt to use the Freedom of Information Act 2000 instead of looking to Members of Parliament to use parliamentary questionsanother nail in the coffin of our effectiveness.
	A constituent once berated me, saying that she wanted me to do somethingnot just words, but actions, she demanded. Words are the Back Bencher's only weapons in the fight for our constituents, and they are often best deployed in written parliamentary questions, which is why we must protect their integrity.
	My speech seeks to do three things. First, it will illustrate the worrying deterioration in the quality of answers given by Ministers by drawing on my recent experience, although I know that other Members have similar stories to tell. Secondly, it will express serious concern about Members' tendency to ask unnecessarily large numbers of questionsthat is certainly part of the explanation for the declining quality. Thirdly, it will offer three simple solutions to the volume problem, in the hope that Ministers and Departments will respond by offering more timely and helpful replies.
	When I applied for the debate, I considered applying for an hour and a half in Westminster Hall. I now find myself with the luxury of two hours on the Floor of the Housean unexpected bonus. If I had known that that windfall would come my way, I would have sought to say more about holding replies, named day questions, questions asked near Prorogation and a host of other matters that are relevant to written parliamentary questions.  [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) says from a sedentary position that he will do that. Those matters are genuinely important, but I want to focus on quality and quantity.
	In recent months, I have noticed a serious deterioration in the quality and timeliness of answers that Ministers provide to my questions. A question that I asked the Home Office about police mergers was answered six months late to the day. It was tabled on 15 November 2005 and due for answer on 17 November. It was eventually answered on 17 May this year. I could detect no sense of irony in the Minister's long-awaited reply, which began:
	The House will be kept up to date about the detailed plans for all areas as options for each are refined.[ Official Report, 17 May 2006; Vol. 446, c. 1047W.]
	At least the Government have taken my advice and delayed the decisions on the merging of police authorities, so at least it was worth waiting for.
	There are other questions to the Home Office, flowing from my correspondence with constituents, to which I have not received replies in an acceptable period, including four questions about foreign prisoners at a prison in my constituency, two of which were tabled on 26 April and were due for answer on 2 May, and a question on guidance to staff escorting deported foreign nationals, which was tabled on 3 May with the answer expected on 8 May. I have even followed up the latter with a chaser question asking when the Minister will reply, which was tabled on 8 June with the answer expected on 13 June, but I have still had no reply. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will tell the Leader of the House that I appreciate the obvious concern that he has expressed about the delays in answering questions, especially by the Home Office. The Leader of the House gave a particularly helpful response recently connected with a point of order made by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson), and we appreciate the concern that he has shown.
	The problem is not only the Home Office. I have also had strong words with Health Ministers about the inadequacy of an important reply that really called into question the point of tabling questions at all. Earlier in the year, I asked two questions about the NHS colorectal screening programme. Bowel cancer is a disease that has killed two close family members, so I was more than irritated by an answer that simply ignored my question. I asked the Secretary of State for Health the following question:
	why the NHS colorectal screening programme will not now start on 1 April; when she expects the programme to start; and if she will make a statement.
	I also asked about the funding for the programme. The answer was bewildering and suggested that my question had not even been read:
	The Government have stated their commitment to a national bowel cancer screening programme, for which funding has been agreed. On 30 January 2006, the new Health White Paper Our health, our care, our say: a new direction for community services reaffirmed that the programme will be rolled out from April 2006.[ Official Report, 30 March 2006; Vol. 444, c. 1170W.]
	I knew that the programme would not be rolled out then, as I happen to have a friend who is closely involved in the issue and who briefed me in great detail about the delay in the roll-out. The answer did not even begin to address my question, but blandly assured me that the programme would be rolled out.
	To be fair to the Minister involved, a strongly worded letter of complaint received a sympathetic reply, but letters from Ministers are not on the record. Nor should Members have to rely on letters to Ministers to chase parliamentary questions. I strongly suspect that, like many others these days, the answer was the product of an unwelcome innovationthe centralised parliamentary answering unitand not of the officials actually charged with the policy. More and more, that unit provides answers to Members' questions without proper reference to those in charge of developing and implementing policy. It is those officials who develop and implement policy who should normally draft the answers that go to Ministers for approval, because it is those officials who know what is happening on the ground.
	On another question to the Department of Health, I recently waited three months to be told that it did not collect the informationan amazingly long time to produce that reply. I was amused by the response to a third question, just this week, on the serious cuts to my local health service, especially in palliative care bedsit was a named day question, given the urgencywhich bizarrely included a holding reply and a totally inadequate substantive reply on the same day. I do not know what was going on with that.
	The straw that broke this particular camel's back was the insensitive and totally inappropriate grouping of important questions after this year's Budget about the precipitate abolition of the home computing initiative. I shall not reopen that debate, but that initiative was a matter of profound importance in my constituency, which is home to a large independent computer manufacturer offering computers under the scheme. I had serious reservations about the principle of abandoning the scheme, and about how that was being done. I think that the scheme should have been phased out and not just abandoned, as there were important implications for the Government's digital inclusion strategy.
	Generally, I have the highest regard for the Paymaster General, but her response to my questions on the subject genuinely shocked me. It was her subsequent refusal on two separate occasions to reconsider her totally inappropriate answers that drove me to seek this debate.
	Ten of my questionsall asked in a genuine spirit of inquirywere arbitrarily grouped together, without any regard for their content. They were dismissively answered in an omnibus reply but, sadly, that omnibus conveyed scarcely any of the passengers invited on board. My 10 questions were published in the  Official Report on 3 May 2006, at column 1719W, and were grouped with questions from other MPs. A total of 30 questions from eight MPssix Conservative and two Liberal Democratreceived just one reply.
	Intriguingly, the luxury of time today has enabled me to notice that there was one additional question on the home computing initiative that day. It could have been grouped with the others, but was not. I do not want to make a party political point, save for the small observation that that ungrouped question happened to come from a Labour Member. I do not know how that could have happened, but there we are: perhaps he was asking about a matter that the Government were anxious to emphasise, whereas they did not want to discuss my concerns, such as those that had to do with the level of consultation with the industry before the decision was taken.
	Eight of my questions were not answered at all in the omnibus reply. One was answered partially, and precisely oneand only onewas answered fully and properly. I needed the answers to be able to find out what was going on so that I could deal with the industry and my constituents, and the Table Office fully shared my concern about the extraordinary way that my questions had been grouped. That is almost unprecedented, but the office was a great help in enabling me to ask two follow-up questions.
	My follow-up questions were answered in the same inadequate manner. In one, I asked about grouping decisions and the provisions of the ministerial code. I received the following answer:
	The questions concerned were grouped to enable a full, substantive statement to be made in the House.[ Official Report, 16 May 2006; Vol. 446, c. 831W.]
	A week later I asked a further question about the considerations taken into account when decisions about grouping were made, and I received a restatement of the previous answer, citing a full, substantive statement. In fact, it was no such thing: instead, I am forced to conclude that it was a pretty blatant attempt to avoid giving me information that would probably be available under the freedom of information legislation.
	As I say, I like the Paymaster General, and in fairness to her I must say that a letter from her happened to come in the post this morningI am sure that the timing is accidental. I can only regard the letter as conciliatory, as it invites me to work with the Government on the development of a new digital inclusion strategy. I am grateful for that acknowledgement that the precipitate abolition of the home computing initiative created a hole in the Government's strategy. That should not have been allowed to happen, but normal relations have now been resumed.
	I want to say somethingbriefly and, I hope, not too pompouslyas Chairman of the Trade and Industry Committee. It is a little foolish of the Department of Trade and Industry, which I think shares my concerns about the abolition of the home computing initiative, not to have replied at all to my four questionsthree in March and one in Aprilon the subject. If I were at the DTI, I should reply to questions from the Select Committee Chairman more promptly than that.

David Lidington: Does my hon. Friend realise that his account demonstrates a worrying change in the culture of the civil service when it comes to answering parliamentary questions? When he was in Whitehalladmittedly that is some years ago nowwas not the view taken that hon. Members were responsible for phrasing questions succinctly and crisply to elicit specific information, but that it was the duty of the Department to give full, factual and accurate responses, and not to try to conceal information in the way that he has described?

Peter Luff: I am grateful for that point, with which I agree. I am about to offer the Government a case for the defence, because there are issues that the House needs to address, too. In the particular case of the home computing initiative, I think that there was a deliberate attempt to withhold information, but other answers have a more innocent explanation so far as the Government are concerned, and we must look to ourselves for a significant share of the blame, some of which we all must share.
	Four years ago, the Procedure Committee conducted a survey of Members' views on questions and received 167 responses. Broadly, it concluded that the system was generally thought to be pretty effective, but that the speed of answers was not sufficient and there was a problem with the quality of many answers. I submit that those problems have got considerably worse in the four years since then.
	The Select Committee on Public Administration has also been monitoring ministerial answers and their quality for several years, but I see no evidence that that important work is having the effect that it ought to have.
	Let us put our own House in order, however, before we tell the Government what to do. Members of Parliament are tabling too many questionsfar too many questions. This has no doubt led to many Ministers feeling, quite fairly and legitimately, swamped and unable to deal with the deluge in sufficient detail and with sufficient speed. It also leads, I suspect, to the setting up of centralised answering units in Departments, which are an extremely unwelcome development.
	The use of the questions procedure has grown significantly. Perhaps some historical perspective will help. In the Session of 1847 there were 129 questionsan average of about one a day. I think that they were all oral questions, as the principle of written questions had not then been established. I have a lengthy exposition at my disposal on the development of the number of questions asked, but I shall cut straight to the more relevant, recent dates. The Table Office has helpfully provided me with figures for the questions tabled in each financial year since the millennium. The House, of course, operates its Sessions over a different year, but these figures are for the financial years because that is the basis on which the House of Commons Commission works, and they are useful.
	There were an average of 302 questions each day in 2000-01; there were 460 in 2001-02; there were 463 in 2002-03; there were 472 in 2003-04; there were 456 in 2004-05; and there were 596 in 2005-06. Those figures include orals, which account for between 20 and 30 a day. There is a different procedure for oralsthe shuffle, in which only those that come out on top are printedand orals are a constant, and a small proportion of the total. The figures give a measure of growthfrom 300 to 600 over that period.
	Those figures are described in the House of Commons Commission annual report as
	dealt with by the Table Office each day.
	They represent questions that appear on the Order Paper, so refer to orderly questions. For questions offered to be tabled, including those that are cardedthe procedure by which a question challenged at the Table Office will bring the Member a card asking him or her to go to discuss it with the Clerksthe figure for 2005-06 was 656 per day. The overall trend is sharply up. At the end of that year, the Table Office was receiving 33 per cent. more questions every day than it had just 12 months previously.
	I have not done my research in detail, and I shall not name and shame anyone this evening, but it seems that the increase is caused by a relatively small number of Members. For example, on 15 June last year, of the 367 ordinary written questions that appeared in the blue pages of the Order Papernot including 73 named-day questions and 25 oralssome four Members accounted for 174, or 47 per cent. of the total. It is not always the same four Members, of course, but I understand that there is a pretty strong pattern identifying 20 or so Members who make a significantly greater use than the rest of us of written questions.
	What are the reasons for that increase in question numbers? First, it has become too easy to ask a question. The Procedure Committee found that there was overwhelming support for electronic tabling of questions: something like 74 per cent. of those who responded were in favour, with 24 per cent. against. I say, however, that popularity is not always a good guide to propriety. Although questions may be received only if a Member signs up for e-tabling and uses the dedicated system, when a question comes to the Table Office by that route there is no way of determining whether there really is a Member at the other end. Strictly speaking, of course, a Member will use the system personally and not give his log-in details or his password to anyone else. But we live in the real world, and we know what really happens.
	The use of e-tabling has increased sharply. At present, 310 Members are signed up for the system. In May, 176 Members tabled one or more questions by that method and the top tabler tabled 197 e-questions. Over the whole year 2005-06, the percentage of all questions e-tabled was 29.6, but the proportion is increasing, and hit 40 per cent. for the first time in February 2006. E-tabling has made things too easy.
	I shall be even more controversial by saying that another reason for the increase in questions is pure and simple laziness. There has been a significant change in the character of parliamentary questions. More than ever, they are used for acquiring large chunks of statistical information or general knowledge, not to inquire into aspects of Government policy, which I consider to be their prime purpose. One might think that a Library, a website or a reference book would have provided the Member with an answer more easily and much more cheaply.
	Some Members do not first check whether the information is already in the public domain; Departments provide a great deal of information online; I have reservations about their use of websitesbut that is the subject of another debate. Members do not need to ask parliamentary questions to find the information but, without betraying any confidences, I can tell the House that I have heard Members engage in exchanges, often robust, with Table Office staff about their right to ask questions, after they have been called in because their question was carded. I have also seen Members happily throw away significant numbers of carded questions without a second's thought. Obviously, their commitment to those questions variesprobably in inverse proportion to their authorship. A question drafted by a Member has more emotional capital invested in it than one drafted, and tabled, by a researcher.
	When I asked how many carded questions drew a Member into the Table Office to discuss them, I was really surprised by the reply. Detailed records are not kept so the figure is only a guess, but the order of magnitude is right: the Table Office estimates that only about 30 per cent. of questions carded as not being in order and needing to be discussed are actually followed up by the Members who tabled them. The other 70 per cent. just lapse and go into the wastepaper basket. Not much commitment there, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I shall make an enemy with my third accusation. Why are we so obsessed with volume? It is a matter of keeping up with the Joneses, and the danger of performance indicators. I put much of the obsession down to a desire on the part of some MPs to provide tangible evidence that they have been working. Some MPs table long lists of questions in an attempt to appear active, just as some Members table and sign large numbers of early-day motions to pretend the same thing. We all know that early-day motions are usually parliamentary graffiti, and many written questions are not much better these days. Researchers are often drafted into helping with the task of giving the appearance of usefulness. The questions are then submitted, with no scrutiny at all from the Member, on pre-signed forms, and dropped into the box outside the Table Office or tabled electronically.
	Chief among the villains is a well-meaning website, www.theyworkforyou.com, which provides numerical rankings of MPs' parliamentary activity, referred to as performance data. For example, to choose a Member at random, the website includes the revelation that my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) has received answers to 35 written questions in the last year323rd out of 644 MPs. It also states that he has attended 36 per cent. of votes in Parliament, coming 628th out of 644 MPs. Those are hardly high scores, although I suspect that they are much higher than those of one or two members of the CabinetI name no namesbut they are certainly not an accurate reflection of the work done by the Leader of Her Majesty's official Opposition. Those activities are not the best use of his time.
	More obscurely, the website lists such bizarre things as how often my right hon. Friend
	has used a three-word alliterative phrase (e.g. 'she sells seashells').
	He has used such a phrase 208 times in debates in the last year, placing him 119th out of 644 MPs.
	Such websites do, to some extent, help people to engage with politics, but it is entirely misleading to imply that an MP's performance can be judged simply in terms of the numbers of questions asked, votes participated in or even alliterations uttered. Numbers are a very crude indicator of effectiveness. One good question is better than 100 bad ones. Indeed, often one short questionparticularly in oral questionsis better. The single word Why? can often floor a Minister much more effectively than anything else. However, we are now in an arms race in which what can be measured will always count for more than intelligent analysis of what has been achieved. That is very worrying.

Mark Harper: At the risk of making lots of enemies, may I suggest that the media play a part in that? The other aspect is the publication of Members' allowances. A number of media organisations do the crude sum of dividing one's allowance by the number of times one has spoken or the number of questions one has tabled. In that way, they work out a value-for-money indicator. If that is how we are judged, Members will be driven to focus on quantity, not quality.

Peter Luff: I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend has made a valuable additional point. We have to be extremely careful about that. I see the Deputy Chief Whip on the Government Front Bench. He is not allowed to participate in our debates or to ask written parliamentary questions, so he scores zero on all those things, but he is a very effective Member of Parliament. He has more access to Ministers and more influence than I do, and can probably achieve as much or more for his constituents. However, that is all entirely invisible. On the performance indicator that my hon. Friend has just identified, the Deputy Chief Whip would do extremely badly, but that would be a monstrously unfair representation of his contribution in the House.
	The problems with asking too many questions are very simple. I do not want to repeat myself. My main concern is the long delays in answering questions, as they stack up in Departments, and the reduced quality of the answers that inevitably flows from that. Interestingly enough, a witness before the Procedure Committee, a former colleague of ours, Andrew Bennett, said:
	We have gone for quantity rather than quality. There is a major problem that some junior ministers spend all their time rushing around...here there and everywhere. They do not have time to think about the answers, particularly to written questions, so they just sign off whatever the civil servant puts in front of them. There are far too many questions and it would make a big difference if there were fewer but there were far better answers to them.
	The answer is not the artificial rationing of questions. If the questions matter, they should be asked and there should be no arbitrary limit on them. The trick is to make sure that they do matter. Effective scrutiny and effective defence of our constituents depends on our unfettered ability to ask the questions that must be asked to get to the bottom of an issue, whatever that issue may be. There have been occasionsat the time of foot and mouth disease, and when there was a proposal for an asylum centre in my constituency, which raised interesting questionswhen I have asked large numbers of questions. An arbitrary cap would have inhibited my ability to serve my constituents properly.
	There is also the question of cost. We must acknowledge that questions are an expensive business. The business of holding the Executive to account is important and merits spending money, but such a tool should not be used irresponsibly. Five years ago the average cost of answering a written question was estimated to be 129 and that of answering an oral question 299. Asking questions is an expensive business, and we must be careful how we use the tool.
	I have indulged in the luxury of more time and have made my points at greater length than I might otherwise have done. Let me turn to what I suggest are three possible remedies. The House has a less legitimate right to complain about inadequate answers if individual Members are abusing the system. I am clear that many answers are inadequate, and I am clear that many Members are abusing the system. I am also clear about what needs to be done, although other Members may have different suggestions to deal with the menace that I have identified. I propose three simple measures to reduce the number of questions tabled, in the hope that as a result, Ministers will feel able to pay more attention to their replies.
	Although my remedies are procedural, it is worth emphasising that, as I said earlier, it would help if we thought a bit more carefully about where we could find things out. Training in both the sources of information available and the purpose of parliamentary questions would help. Parliamentary questions are not a short-cut research tool, but a vital part of the politician's armoury to hold the Government to account. My three proposals will not be popular with all Members, but they are important. They are based on the principle that if a thing is worth asking about, it is worth making a bit effort to ask about it.
	First, we should end the electronic tabling of questionsat least while the system is examined for abuse. We know that it is being abused. Our individual convenience should not come ahead of the integrity of the whole system. True parliamentary modernisation is not about making things easier for Members or the Executive, or even using new technology for its own sake because it is there. It should be about making Parliament more relevant. The loss of e-tabling may be regretted by the anoraks and nerds, but it should be welcomed by all true parliamentary democrats.
	My second proposal is that we should require all questions to be tabled in person by Members, not their staff. I repeat that if a question is worth asking, it is worth making the effort. The proposal would be a form of rationing through which those who made the effort would get the reward. There would be no more dropping parliamentary questions in the box outside the Table Office. Members of Parliament would actually have to go through the door in person and hand their questions to the hard-working and helpful Clerks who frequent the office. Members might find that their questions were improved in the process if they sought a bit of advice from the Clerks.
	If we could table questions when the House was not sitting, the proposal would require the Table Office to be staffed for at least part of the summer recess. As I have the luxury of more time, I will make my next point at more length than I had intended. I do not favour a return to September sittings, for a range of reasons that are outside the terms of the debate, but the House should find it easier to hold the Government to account during the recess. One way of achieving that would be to allow Members to table written parliamentary questions during the recess.
	I am aware of two Select Committee recommendations on this matter, although there are probably others. The third report of the Procedure Committee in 2001-02, entitled Parliamentary Questions, said:
	We therefore recommend that with effect from 1 September each year, Members should be permitted to table written questions...this change should be made irrespective of whether the Government's proposals for September sittings of the House are adopted.
	It also said:
	during recess periods...the Table Office should be open every Thursday during specified hours.
	Much more recently, the Modernisation Committee made exactly the same point, albeit slightly finessed, in a report on sitting hours that was published on 11 January 2005. It said:
	Since there will be no September sitting in 2005, we propose that there should instead be a two-week period during which questions for written answer may be tabled and answered and we urge the Leader of the House to bring forward a Motion to give effect to this proposal.
	Those sound ideas would help us to do our job during the recess, so I commend them to hon. Members, and to the Deputy Leader of the House. I realise that they would require the Table Office to open for limited periods, so there might be a question of expense, but it would be worth adopting such a procedure.
	My third proposal is very simple: we should change the question forms that we have to sign so that Members' signatures need to be entered at the absolute end of the question on the page, not at the bottom of the form. That would end the practice of signing blank forms, and ensure that Members at least looked at the questions that they were tabling, even if they had been written by someone else. Perhaps it is not too ambitious to hope that Members might start writing questions themselves, which would be wonderful.
	None of us would leave a book of signed blank cheques lying around the House, or even our home, but Members are doing something similar in terms of their right to scrutinise the Government, which they are treating lightly, as they also treat the expense of answering questions. My proposal would be a simple but powerful device to ensure that Members' researchers would no longer be able to bombard the Order Paper with unnecessary questions.
	I am grateful that I have had the opportunity to use the luxury of additional time, but I will now conclude. I have outlined three simple and practical proposals that could restore integrity to the whole process. If Parliament cleans up its act, we will have a right to look to Ministers to do the same thing by improving the processes for the answering of questions in their Departments. Who knows? Then I might even get some better and more timely answers for my constituents.

Mark Harper: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff) for securing this timely and thoughtful debate. I want to dwell on one or two of the issues that he did not raise. He was quite right that there have been several problems with late answers.
	My hon. Friend did not mention questions that are tabled for answer on a named day. I receive an increasing number of holding answers to such questions. If one has asked a detailed and complex question that cannot be answered fully in a short time, it is perfectly reasonable to receive a holding answer, as long as a full answer arrives in a reasonably short time. However, I am disturbed that questions that require simple statements of fact or Government policy that ought to be easily availablenot the sort of things that are available on a website, but information that it should be pretty straightforward for a Minister to givestill receive a holding answer. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) tabled such a question to ask the Government to lay out their strategic objectives in the middle east. Given that we have close on 10,000 troops there, it should have been reasonably possible for the Foreign Office to lay its hands on a comprehensive answer, but he instead received a holding answer, which seemed inappropriate. Perhaps the situation arose because of the points about volume that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire made. The answers to those sorts of questions need to be approved by a Minister, and if there is a significant number of questions it is simply not possible for even the basic ones to be answered within the deadline. The quantity is definitely affecting the quality.
	My hon. Friend also made the point that with the advent of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, we have to be very careful about how we use parliamentary questions to make sure that Ministers look to the answers to parliamentary questions as the pre-eminent method of transmitting information to Members, as Mr. Speaker has on a number of occasions made clear that they should. We should not be able to get that information more quickly or more comprehensively by another route. We know that newspapers make lots of freedom of information requests. Indeed, at some point it may be worth having an Adjournment debate on how that legislation is working. I suspect that some of the things that my hon. Friend said about parliamentary questions probably apply to freedom of information requests. We need to make sure that Parliament, not the Freedom of Information Act, is the central method of holding the Executive to account.
	I agree with my hon. Friend to some extent about being careful about the costs that we incur, although looking at it from an accountant's point of view, I am always very nervous about the quoted cost of answering questions. Unless there is an increase in the number of staffwith Departments rushing out and hiring staff specifically to answer questionsmost of that cost is a matter of allocating overheads.
	I would argue that if civil servants are busy answering questions, they are probably not inventing costly Government policies. One could argue that tabling lots of questions and tying up the Government in that way is saving taxpayers' money rather than incurring a cost. If we look simply at the accounting side of the matter, there is resource involved in answering questions, even if it is just time. The biggest cost is probably not a financial cost; if we put Departments under pressure to answer a volume of questions that are not worth answering, we take away valuable time that Ministers and civil servants ought to be using for thinking about policy and about implementing policy. Perhaps, rather than focusing purely on the cash cost, we should consider the reduction in the quality of government that we are getting.
	The potential solutions laid out my hon. Friend are very valuable. After some thought, I think that his e-tabling solution is worthy of consideration. Coming from an IT background, I am always reluctant to get rid of a technological solution, but forcing Members to table questions in person may be advantageous, as Table Office staff are able to look at the questions. We could perhaps allow e-tabling during recesses. As a new Member, I have found no problem visiting the Table Office to table my questions.
	To expand on a point that my hon. Friend made in passing, I have found the quality of the Table Office staff to be very high. They often improve the question, and it is useful for a Member to discuss with them exactly the point that one is trying to get to and the information that one is trying to get. They, with their great experience, are often able to suggest ways of drafting a question so that one is more likely to get the information that one is after. Members who solely use e-tabling or have questions deposited in the box, and do not interact with Table Office staff, are missing out on a valuable resource available to them. Perhaps if they used that resource, and questions improved, it would make it more difficult for Ministers to give poor answers, as some of those loopholes left in the questions would be closed.
	My hon. Friend's suggestion of forcing Members to sign immediately after the question, or some solution to force Members into personal interaction, is incredibly valuable. I was very surprised by the information that he gave about the small number of carded questions which are followed up. I know that when I table questions, I actually want the answer, whether for constituency reasons or for Front-Bench responsibilities. If I receive a card from the Table Office, I make it my business to present myself there fairly sharply to clear up the problem with the question, discuss it with the staff and ensure that it is tabled. Frequently, if questions are not answered, I have to table questions chasing them up. Usually, when I table questions, the answer matters, either to a constituent or as part of the formulation of Government policy and the process of holding the Executive to account. That is our responsibility. I agree with what my hon. Friend said about TheyWorkForYou.com and the way in which its measurement of the effectiveness of a Member of Parliament in a performance league table puts Members under incredible pressure. If they do not undertake a volume of work, their performance is criticisedthat applies more to new Members than experienced colleagues, who are more relaxed because they have more experience in the House.
	That league table, however, is indicative of a wider problem. Many of our constituents are professionals who work in public services. They say that many professional peopleand I hope that Members of Parliament consider themselves professional peoplewhether they work in the public or private sector believe that they operate in a target culture, in which management attempt to categorise all their work with easily measurable performance indicators. Government bear wider responsibility, as they try to measure public servants' performance in professional, complicated jobs with simple performance indicators, so we can hardly complain when others judge us with similarly ill-thought-through measures that do not fully comprehend a Member of Parliament's role. In a wider sense, therefore, we only have ourselves to blame.
	Finally, I endorse my hon. Friend's support of the Procedure Committee's recommendations about the way in which we hold the Executive to account in the recess, particularly the summer recess. We have a constant battle explaining to the press and our constituents that we do not have long summer holiday. The House may not be sitting, but we still have many things to attend to. We receive letters from constituents and we attend engagements in our constituencies. We can use the time for thinking, researching policy or doing things that we do not have time to do when we are under heavy day-to-day pressure. However, we are supposed to hold the Government to account in the recess. We could introduce a pilot measure, at least to allow questions to be tabled in September. I accept that there would be logistical problems for the Table Office if we permitted questions to be tabled throughout the recess. Table Office staff work incredible long hours when the House is sitting, and they are entitled to a holiday. It would be sensible not to allow questions to be tabled in August, but the opportunity to do so would be welcome in September. As the House is not sitting, we may have to use a measure such as e-tabling, given that it is physically problematic for Members whose constituencies are far from London to come to the House. However, it is certainly worth a trial with certain constraints to see how the proposal works and to reinforce for Members of Parliament the message of quality versus quantity.
	My hon. Friend has done the House a valuable service by holding this debate, and I look forward to the response from the Deputy Leader of the House.

Nigel Griffiths: I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff) on securing this debate on the issue of written parliamentary questions, and on the thoughtful way he presented his case. However, he will forgive me if I do not agree with every detail of his analysis.
	As well as expressing concern about the speed and quality of answers he has received, the hon. Member expressed wider concern about what he regards as a problem in the operation of the system for tabling written questions. He suggested that there was a link between that problem and some of the difficulties he has experienced securing satisfactory responses to his perfectly legitimate parliamentary questions. I will deal with the wider issues in a moment, but in respect of any problems that he has encountered securing answers to individual questions, may I emphasise, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has made clear, that the Government attach a high priority to the obligations on Ministers to respond properly to written questions? The Government fully recognise the important role played by parliamentary questions in contributing to the accountability of Government to Parliament. That accountability lies at the heart of our constitutional arrangements.
	Paragraph 1.5 of the ministerial code states:
	Ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and to be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments and agencies.
	The code continues:
	it is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament...Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament.
	The Cabinet Office guidance backs that up, setting out the deadlines for responding to parliamentary questions. Since taking up his post, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has been at pains to underline the Government's commitment in this area. He has raised the matter directly with Cabinet colleagues, and he has responded to concerns raised on the Floor of the House, most recently on 14 June following a point of order.
	Of course, there will be times when hon. Members do not feel that the response that they have been given is up to the standard that they want. Where hon. Members are dissatisfied with the response given, various remedies are, of course, open to them. They can correspond with the Minister, table further parliamentary questions and engage in other procedures of the House, including, of course, Adjournment debates such as this one. They can also report their dissatisfaction to the Public Administration Committee, which reports regularly to the House. The Committee has completed a number of reports on the quality of answering, and it takes representations from individual hon. Members into account in its comments. We must strive to ensure that the original answer is satisfactory and that hon. Members feel no need to engage with any of these follow-up paths. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire has drawn the House's attention to answers that he has received recently from three Departments, and I will certainly take up his points with those Departments.
	Let me turn to the issue with which the hon. Member dealt at some length and which he and I believe the whole House needs to consider carefullywhether the dramatic rise in the number of written questions, particularly those tabled by researchers and volunteers, is contributing to a decline in the quality of answers. It is in the interests of both Government and Parliament that the system works well. The more effective the tabling procedure, the more effective will be the accountability. The procedure works best when the questions tabled are penetrating and factual, and the answers are as accurate as possible.
	The hon. Member has rightly pointed out that that creates obligations on both sides. He has highlighted the concerns of many hon. Members that so many written questions are being tabled that the quality of the questions is diminished and that the quality of the answers comes under threat, too. The hon. Member has given some graphic statistics, covering both written and oral questions, and I can underline his essential conclusion by giving the figures for written questions alone. In the 1997 Parliament, around 200 written questions were tabled on each sitting day. In the 2001 Parliament, that rose to 350 questions tabled each day. And in this Parliament, since 2005, the figure has risen further to 474 questions tabled a day. Clearly, since the number of written questions has more than doubled in less than a decade, this will have some effect on the time Ministers and officials have to devote to preparing and authorising the answers.
	As the hon. Member has said, the Procedure Committee last looked at the matter in 2002. The then Leader of the House, Robin Cook, was asked whether he thought that
	there is an erosion in the quality of the answers people get to those written questions.
	Because of the increase in the number of questions, he gave the unequivocal answer, yes, and he said that when the number of written parliamentary questions was significantly lower than it is now. He believed that pressure on the system was such that the overall level of answering declines, so that it is not only those who have caused the increase, unwittingly or not, who suffer, but all hon. Members who suffer.
	The hon. Member has been as constructive as he has been critical. He has criticised e-tabling, which was introduced in 2002. As the hon. Member has described, it is popular, but it is open to abuse. The use of electronic means for conducting our affairs is something that we are all used to, and it is absolutely right that we should be looking for ways to improve the efficiency with which we conduct our business in this place.
	The hon. Member has posed the essential question: is e-tabling making the tabling of questions by researchers too easy? Is it threatening the required link between a question and the hon. Member in whose name it stands? That was certainly a concern at the time that e-tabling was introduced. The Procedure Committee noted that, in essence, there was a choice between a strong authentication systemsuch as a Member's House security passbefore a question could be sent, or a weak authentication system involving a written authority and protocols. On balance, it thought that the House would prefer the weaker model, but proposed that it should be experimental, and that the Speaker should have a power to act if necessary. The House opted for the weaker system, but an increasing number of hon. Members believe that there is a case for reviewing the situation. Of course, the issue of how far the Member tabling a question is really involved in the process can arise with questions tabled in hard copy. The Table Office is aware of hon. Members who, in effect, pass on pre-signed pads of question forms for their staff to use.
	The second issue of concern raised by the hon. Member is whether Members are asking for information readily available elsewhere. That concern, too, has been raised in past discussions. Robin Cook told the Procedure Committee in 2002 that
	there are...an awful lot of questions which go down...asking about matters which are easily in the public domain. To be frank, when I was in opposition I found it more useful to wander along the library and ask for information than to try and put questions to the Government...I got the answer in more convincing detail and, sometimes, quicker than when I tabled a question to the minister. Since those days the internet has exploded in terms of the availability of information.
	That latter point is important: masses of information is available both in the House of Commons Library and on the internet from both Government and other websites, which would answer many of the questions tabled. If Members' staff cannot easily identify where to look or what they need, the House of Commons Library could not be more helpful.

Peter Luff: My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) rightly paid tribute to the work of the Table Office, which perhaps I should have done at greater length in my speech. The Minister is making an important point. The Library is an incredibly powerful resource, which Parliament still probably under-uses.

Nigel Griffiths: On a personal note, I have always found the Library to be the gem of this place and the real adornment. I agree with the hon. Member.
	The then Leader of the House, Robin Cook, made several important points that reflected his thoughtful style and prescience about embracing new technology, but also pointed out that that needs to be considered in practice.
	The hon. Member referred to the pressure that some Members feel to be seen to be tabling lots of questions, or at least more questions than their parliamentary neighbours, and he mentioned websites that promote that effect. Clearly, we have colleagues who are more easily swayed by such league tables than others. As I think that he indicated, however, Government accountability is not about crude numerical performance measures, and nor is that of individual Members. It is not a contest in that sense. It is about improving the performance of Government and about helping to establish whether that performance is satisfactory or how it might be improved.
	The hon. Member made several proposals about how the situation might be addressed, which were echoed eloquently by his hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper): ending the system of e-tabling; requiring all parliamentary questions to be handed in by a Member to the Table Office; and/or requiring a Member's signature at the end of the question as it is handed in, rather than at the bottom of the form, to help preclude the use of pre-signed forms.
	Let me be frank: I do not want to be seenthe Government do not want to be seenas seeking to clamp down in any way on Members' ability to scrutinise the Executive. Members have different perspectives on what is important and how they wish to pursue their work, or on how to use their staff. That is absolutely right and proper. But the Government agree with the hon. Member that the volume of written parliamentary questions is causing difficulties. In practice, as the Leader of the House pointed out today, in many ways, the Government are now subject to wider scrutiny, from even more directionsboth parliamentary and non-parliamentarythan was ever the case in the past. It is certainly not for the Government to seek to impose changes on the House in this regard. It is healthy that the concerns expressed this evening have come from an individual Memberan Opposition Member, indeedand his colleagues, and not from the Executive.
	I have drawn the hon. Member's concerns to the attention of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight). He chairs the Procedure Committee, which last examined the issue four years ago under other chairmanship. The right hon. Member is minded to ask his Committee to consider the hon. Member's proposals, and will write to him after he has studied them more fully. That, in turn, could pave the way to the tabling of questions when the House is not sitting. A review by the Procedure Committee could allow a proper assessment of the views of other Members to establish the extent to which the hon. Member's concerns are shared, and the extent to which Members are prepared to consider changes in practices that will involve co-operation on all sides. Let me make it clear again that the objective would be better scrutiny, not less scrutiny, of the Executive by the House.
	I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends for giving us an opportunity to discuss the issues more fully.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Six o'clock.